Thanks for all the comments so far on my questions. I'm afraid I have to
postpone some of the issues, however.
Now, I've got a different problem. I run accross a bug in layout
concerning block-containers with height/BPD specified
(absolute-position="auto"). I tried to fix it but I can't find the
p
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> Now, I've got a different problem. I run accross a bug in
> layout concerning block-containers with height/BPD specified
> (absolute-position="auto"). I tried to fix it but I can't
> find the passage in the spec that tells me how to deal with
> the space that is not al
Can anyone tell why there was such a layout manager reuse in the first
place? I guess there was a reason.
On 26.01.2005 18:51:55 jeremias wrote:
> jeremias2005/01/26 09:51:55
>
> Modified:src/java/org/apache/fop/layoutmgr
> PageSequenceLayoutManager.java
> Log:
On 26.01.2005 18:43:58 Victor Mote wrote:
> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
>
> > Now, I've got a different problem. I run accross a bug in
> > layout concerning block-containers with height/BPD specified
> > (absolute-position="auto"). I tried to fix it but I can't
> > find the passage in the spec tha
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> Given a block-container where the BPD is specified, are its
> children subject to column/page breaking if the whole
> block-container doesn't fit into the available area in BP
> direction? If yes, how is the remaining space in BP direction
My reading of the passage ci
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeremias Maerki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ...Anyway, maybe I should ask the question in a different way:
>
> Given a block-container where the BPD is specified, are its children
> subject to column/page breaking if the whole block-container doesn't fit
> int
Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
> In either case it seems to make little sense to speak of
> 'remaining space'
> as in 'the space not allocated by descendant FOs inside the
> b-c', unless you mean the space remaining on the _page_ after
> the first child viewport for the b-c is added. The sum of the
please remove my email address in this list. Thanks.
--- Victor Mote <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
>
> > In either case it seems to make little sense to speak of
> > 'remaining space'
> > as in 'the space not allocated by descendant FOs inside the
> > b-c', unless you
try sending a message to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> -Original Message-
> From: Feifei Lu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: woensdag 26 januari 2005 22:16
> To: fop-dev@xml.apache.org
> Subject: RE: block-containers with BPD set
>
>
> please remove my email address in this list. Thanks.
We can't unsubscribe you. To unsubscribe, you need to send an e-mail to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web Maestro Clay
On Jan 26, 2005, at 1:16 PM, Feifei Lu wrote:
please remove my email address in this list. Thanks.
--- Victor Mote <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
In either case it seem
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Can anyone tell why there was such a layout manager reuse in the first
place? I guess there was a reason.
I Should know because I wrote the first version, but I can't
remember the details. I guess it had something to do with the
overhead of constructing the LM. BTW page numbe
> -Original Message-
> From: Victor Mote [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: woensdag 26 januari 2005 21:49
>
> Just to be clear (not argumentative), I was saying something quite
> different. For the example that Andreas has given, my
> understanding is that there would only be one child
> vi
Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
> Do you feel the contents of the block-container should not be
> broken up at all? (Hence the analogy to a fo:external-graphic?)
No, sorry, I didn't mean to imply that. I think the contents can (possibly,
depending on the overflow constraints) be broken up, but that t
13 matches
Mail list logo
