Re: Keep-together (and the other keep-*'s)
At 09:36 AM 7/17/01 +0100, Alex McLintock wrote: --- Struan Judd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If so might I request a small departure from the XSL:FO spec, if it is straight-forward to implement. Please allow keep-together on fo:table-row. I don't think deviations from the XSL:FO spec are either wise or going to be popular. Can't comment on this particular request, but I'm personally pretty sure that a number of deviations from the spec _would_, in fact, be quite popular. FOP is developmental immature; the last thing we need is to deliberately add in non-conformities to the ones that are already there. For a commercial, relatively mature processor like XEP, I think arguments can be made for some careful deviations from spec, and indeed they (RenderX) have made some such here and there (borders on regions, for example). Personally I would argue against doing _anything_ like that right now, until FOP is feature-complete and production-ready. Then it could be revisited. Even then I would be normally against it, but not inflexibly so, because the XSL 1.0 spec just does not cover all the bases, and it doesn't do everything right. And who knows when XSL 2.0 will appear? As an aside, we are clearly not talking about extensions. Separate issue. I think those are fine. Regards, Arved Sandstrom Fairly Senior Software Type e-plicity (http://www.e-plicity.com) Wireless * B2B * J2EE * XML --- Halifax, Nova Scotia - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Keep-together (and the other keep-*'s)
Im XSL FO spec in article 6.7.9 fo:table-row keep-together, keep-with- previous and keep-with-next properties are listed in The following properties apply to this formatting object:. So why is keep-together on table-row considered against spec? pa On 17 Jul 2001, at 9:36 Alex McLintock wrote about Re: Keep-together (and the other ke : --- Struan Judd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If so might I request a small departure from the XSL:FO spec, if it is straight-forward to implement. Please allow keep-together on fo:table-row. I don't think deviations from the XSL:FO spec are either wise or going to be popular. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Keep-together (and the other keep-*'s)
Subject: Re: Keep-together (and the other keep-*'s) It's not against spec in my book either, but it's currently not implemented in FOP, for table-row or for anything else. The problem with all that keep-* stuff is that it's not that easy to do. Actually, I was kind of mulling it over for table-rows, but so far, I haven't gotten around to it. Karen And on a carefuly re-reading of the Spec I see what caused my confusion. In 6.7.9 the keep-together attribute is noted as applying to fo:table-row, whereas in 7.18.3 (where I was looking when I wrote my inital email), fo:table-row is missing from the list of objects the keep-together attribute applies to. Ooops. And as to difficult to do. I bet. But very useful. I might just have to make some home programming time and dive in. TTFN Struan Judd * And so it begins ... ICQ: 4498196 http://neongraal.sf.org.nz mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Voicemail and Fax: +1 (201) 305-1011 x1006 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
