AW: W: AW: Keep-together.within-page in FOP 0.95
Hi Vincent, Thanks for the answer. Luckily this problem solved itself, because the breaking rules I need to implement are simpler than they seemed at first. Regards, Georg Datterl -- Kontakt -- Georg Datterl Geneon media solutions gmbh Gutenstetter Straße 8a 90449 Nürnberg HRB Nürnberg: 17193 Geschäftsführer: Yong-Harry Steiert Tel.: 0911/36 78 88 - 26 Fax: 0911/36 78 88 - 20 www.geneon.de Weitere Mitglieder der Willmy MediaGroup: IRS Integrated Realization Services GmbH:www.irs-nbg.de Willmy PrintMedia GmbH:www.willmy.de Willmy Consult Content GmbH: www.willmycc.de -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Vincent Hennebert [mailto:vhenneb...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 23. Januar 2009 17:16 An: fop-users@xmlgraphics.apache.org Betreff: Re: W: AW: Keep-together.within-page in FOP 0.95 Hi Georg, Georg Datterl wrote: Hi Jeremias, I finally came around to testing your keep-together with numbers and it did not quite work as I did not expect anyway. Let's assume I have one block with five child blocks. If all five blocks fit on one page, keep them on one page. Otherwise break between block 3 and 4. If any block alone is too big for one page, break it where necessary. block keep-together.within-page=1 block keep-together.within-page=3 (block 1 content)/block block keep-together.within-page=3 (block 2 content)/block block keep-together.within-page=2 (block 3 content)/block block keep-together.within-page=3 (block 4 content)/block block keep-together.within-page=3 (block 5 content)/block /block should that work? do I need more wrapping blocks like maybe one block around blocks 1-3 and one around 4 and 5? I think so. Something like this: block keep-together.within-page=1 block keep-together.within-page=2 block keep-together.within-page=3(block 1 content)/block block keep-together.within-page=3(block 2 content)/block block keep-together.within-page=3(block 3 content)/block /block block keep-together.within-page=2 block keep-together.within-page=3(block 4 content)/block block keep-together.within-page=3(block 5 content)/block /block /block However this is all theoretical, since FOP currently handles all integer values the same way; that is, set a very high penalty for breaking inside the block, but not forbid it completely. The idea is to encourage the algorithm to favour layouts without breaks over those with breaks. While this might not always be the case, the hope is that this is what will happen for most real-life documents. To achieve what you need integer keeps would have to be fully implemented. I don't think there is any solution other than that, unfortunately. Regards, Georg Datterl HTH, Vincent - To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscr...@xmlgraphics.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-h...@xmlgraphics.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscr...@xmlgraphics.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-h...@xmlgraphics.apache.org
AW: AW: W: AW: Keep-together.within-page in FOP 0.95
Hi Jeremias, I finally came around to testing your keep-together with numbers and it did not quite work as I did not expect anyway. Let's assume I have one block with five child blocks. If all five blocks fit on one page, keep them on one page. Otherwise break between block 3 and 4. If any block alone is too big for one page, break it where necessary. block keep-together.within-page=1 block keep-together.within-page=3 (block 1 content)/block block keep-together.within-page=3 (block 2 content)/block block keep-together.within-page=2 (block 3 content)/block block keep-together.within-page=3 (block 4 content)/block block keep-together.within-page=3 (block 5 content)/block /block should that work? do I need more wrapping blocks like maybe one block around blocks 1-3 and one around 4 and 5? Regards, Georg Datterl -- Kontakt -- Georg Datterl Geneon media solutions gmbh Gutenstetter Straße 8a 90449 Nürnberg HRB Nürnberg: 17193 Geschäftsführer: Yong-Harry Steiert Tel.: 0911/36 78 88 - 26 Fax: 0911/36 78 88 - 20 www.geneon.de Weitere Mitglieder der Willmy MediaGroup: IRS Integrated Realization Services GmbH:www.irs-nbg.de Willmy PrintMedia GmbH:www.willmy.de Willmy Consult Content GmbH: www.willmycc.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscr...@xmlgraphics.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-h...@xmlgraphics.apache.org
AW: W: AW: Keep-together.within-page in FOP 0.95
Hi Jeremias, I'll try that next year. I have quite a complicated table who should be kept together except if it spans more than a page. Speaking of tables: Given a table with two rows, two columns, cell in first column spans both rows, is there a way to tell FOP: If there's a break between this two rows, repeat the content of the split cell on next pages? I read the specification, but I did not quite understand it. Always means never break and auto means break, wenever you feel like it. But numbers would mean, a keep or break can influence other keeps or breaks. I can see a keep-with-next clash with a break-before or the other way round or a keep on a block clash with a break on a sub-block, but which strength does a break because end of page/column/line is reached have? Or a break because otherwise it would not fit the page? Everything very complicated... Regards, Georg Datterl -- Kontakt -- Georg Datterl Geneon media solutions gmbh Gutenstetter Straße 8a 90449 Nürnberg HRB Nürnberg: 17193 Geschäftsführer: Yong-Harry Steiert Tel.: 0911/36 78 88 - 26 Fax: 0911/36 78 88 - 20 www.geneon.de Weitere Mitglieder der Willmy MediaGroup: IRS Integrated Realization Services GmbH:www.irs-nbg.de Willmy PrintMedia GmbH:www.willmy.de Willmy Consult Content GmbH: www.willmycc.de -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Jeremias Maerki [mailto:d...@jeremias-maerki.ch] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. Dezember 2008 12:43 An: fop-users@xmlgraphics.apache.org Betreff: Re: W: AW: Keep-together.within-page in FOP 0.95 On 18.12.2008 12:10:27 Georg Datterl wrote: Hi Jeremias, block keep-together.within-column=1 blockI use 30% height/block blockI use 30% height/block blockI use 50% height/block /block In this case, the 50% block is moved to the next page if the layout engine doesn't find a better solution, for example by keeping the first block on the previous page and keeping the latter two together. (all assuming those nested blocks are unbreakable for example by carrying a keep-together.within-column=always) So, without a keep-together.within-column, the sequence would be: most preferable break: after third block. (impossible, since 110%) less preferable: after second block. (possible, if blocks before take = 40%) even less preferable: after first block. (possible, if blocks before take 41% to 70%) even less preferable: before first block. (possible, if blocks before take 71% ) It's difficult to say exactly that as this also depends on the surrounding content if any. A break before the first block will never happen if the content above is the only content in the document. = Meaning: fit as much as possible on the previous page More or less, yes. So, with keep-together.within-column=1, the sequence would be (from your description): most preferable break: after third block. (impossible, since 110%) less preferable: after first block. (possible, if blocks before take = 70%) even less preferable: after second block. ( would only happen if block2+block3 would use more than 100% and blocks before block1 would take =40%) even less preferable: before first block. (possible, if blocks before take 71% ) Hmmm. At least what you can say is that the most preferable break is after the third block. Whether then the break possibility after the first or second block is more preferable depends on the surrounding content. I don't understand why. I hope the above clears that up a bit. However, if you want an exact description of how this works I have to give you a pointer into the spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl11/#keepbreak That explains everything though maybe in a very technical way and without examples. Of course my example was buggy, I meant: keep-with-next, not keep-together. :-) What I was trying to say is: keep-with-next if in any way possible. Separate from next ONLY if both blocks together would never ever fit on a page, since they take more than 100%. block I use 30% height/block block keep-with-next=1 I use 30% height /block I don't really like the use of the shorthand. That can lead to nasty side-effects, especially with keep-together. blockI use 50% height/block would break before the second block, but Yes. block I use 30% height/block block keep-with-next=1 I use 30% height /block blockI use 80% height/block would break after the second block. Yes. snip/ Jeremias Maerki - To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscr...@xmlgraphics.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-h...@xmlgraphics.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscr...@xmlgraphics.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-h...@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: AW: W: AW: Keep-together.within-page in FOP 0.95
On 18.12.2008 13:17:17 Georg Datterl wrote: Hi Jeremias, I'll try that next year. I have quite a complicated table who should be kept together except if it spans more than a page. Speaking of tables: Given a table with two rows, two columns, cell in first column spans both rows, is there a way to tell FOP: If there's a break between this two rows, repeat the content of the split cell on next pages? No. I read the specification, but I did not quite understand it. Always means never break and auto means break, wenever you feel like it. But numbers would mean, a keep or break can influence other keeps or breaks. I can see a keep-with-next clash with a break-before or the other way round or a keep on a block clash with a break on a sub-block, but which strength does a break because end of page/column/line is reached have? A break is always stronger than any keep. Or a break because otherwise it would not fit the page? That's basically what the integer values allow. Everything very complicated... Yeah, there you see what we have to build here. Regards, Georg Datterl -- Kontakt -- Georg Datterl Geneon media solutions gmbh Gutenstetter Straße 8a 90449 Nürnberg HRB Nürnberg: 17193 Geschäftsführer: Yong-Harry Steiert Tel.: 0911/36 78 88 - 26 Fax: 0911/36 78 88 - 20 www.geneon.de Weitere Mitglieder der Willmy MediaGroup: IRS Integrated Realization Services GmbH:www.irs-nbg.de Willmy PrintMedia GmbH:www.willmy.de Willmy Consult Content GmbH: www.willmycc.de -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Jeremias Maerki [mailto:d...@jeremias-maerki.ch] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. Dezember 2008 12:43 An: fop-users@xmlgraphics.apache.org Betreff: Re: W: AW: Keep-together.within-page in FOP 0.95 On 18.12.2008 12:10:27 Georg Datterl wrote: Hi Jeremias, block keep-together.within-column=1 blockI use 30% height/block blockI use 30% height/block blockI use 50% height/block /block In this case, the 50% block is moved to the next page if the layout engine doesn't find a better solution, for example by keeping the first block on the previous page and keeping the latter two together. (all assuming those nested blocks are unbreakable for example by carrying a keep-together.within-column=always) So, without a keep-together.within-column, the sequence would be: most preferable break: after third block. (impossible, since 110%) less preferable: after second block. (possible, if blocks before take = 40%) even less preferable: after first block. (possible, if blocks before take 41% to 70%) even less preferable: before first block. (possible, if blocks before take 71% ) It's difficult to say exactly that as this also depends on the surrounding content if any. A break before the first block will never happen if the content above is the only content in the document. = Meaning: fit as much as possible on the previous page More or less, yes. So, with keep-together.within-column=1, the sequence would be (from your description): most preferable break: after third block. (impossible, since 110%) less preferable: after first block. (possible, if blocks before take = 70%) even less preferable: after second block. ( would only happen if block2+block3 would use more than 100% and blocks before block1 would take =40%) even less preferable: before first block. (possible, if blocks before take 71% ) Hmmm. At least what you can say is that the most preferable break is after the third block. Whether then the break possibility after the first or second block is more preferable depends on the surrounding content. I don't understand why. I hope the above clears that up a bit. However, if you want an exact description of how this works I have to give you a pointer into the spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl11/#keepbreak That explains everything though maybe in a very technical way and without examples. Of course my example was buggy, I meant: keep-with-next, not keep-together. :-) What I was trying to say is: keep-with-next if in any way possible. Separate from next ONLY if both blocks together would never ever fit on a page, since they take more than 100%. block I use 30% height/block block keep-with-next=1 I use 30% height /block I don't really like the use of the shorthand. That can lead to nasty side-effects, especially with keep-together. blockI use 50% height/block would break before the second block, but Yes. block I use 30% height/block block keep-with-next=1 I use 30% height /block blockI use 80% height/block would break after the second block. Yes. snip/ Jeremias Maerki - To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscr...@xmlgraphics.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail
