On Oct 19, 2007, at 13:32, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
On Oct 18, 2007, at 19:23, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
snip/
I think I see your point. Basically you’re proposing a push
method (a LM
notifies its parent LM that it has a break-before) while mine is
a pull
method
Hi Andreas,
Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
On Oct 18, 2007, at 19:23, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
snip/
I think I see your point. Basically you’re proposing a push method (a LM
notifies its parent LM that it has a break-before) while mine is a pull
method (a LM asks its children LMs if they have
Hi Andreas,
Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
On Aug 2, 2007, at 12:13, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
Hi Vincent
Hope you still remember this one. Sorry about the late reply. Still
catching up on some missed posts during the holidays.
Hope you still remember this one. Sorry about the late reply.
On Oct 18, 2007, at 19:23, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
snip /
OTOH, the above is semantically equivalent to (I think we had already
established that there should not be a double page-break here)
fo:block break-before=page
fo:block
fo:block
If the LMs would be guaranteed to receive the
On Aug 2, 2007, at 12:13, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
Hi Vincent
Hope you still remember this one. Sorry about the late reply. Still
catching up on some missed posts during the holidays.
I’ve been thinking about the handling of keeps and breaks in tables
for
a while, and it seems to me that
Hi all,
Caution, long post ;-)
I’ve been thinking about the handling of keeps and breaks in tables for
a while, and it seems to me that improvements could be done in that
whole area. I’ll use break-before as an example but what I’ll be saying
applies to break-after and keeps as well.
