What I tried to propose is mostly just that. Implementing some shortcut
that at least treats all integer values differently from always with a
constant penalty value. That gives FOP the opportunity to relax while
still allowing the rather intuitive always not to relax thus providing
both kinds of
On Thursday 13 July 2006 22:09, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
What I tried to propose is mostly just that. Implementing some
shortcut that at least treats all integer values differently from
always with a constant penalty value. That gives FOP the
opportunity to relax while still allowing the rather
I've just written to the XSL SG. Hopefully, the question gets answered
this time.
On 22.06.2006 10:40:36 Peter B. West wrote:
On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 16:50 +0200, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Have you tried the Disposition of Comments? I don't know how accessible
they are to Google.
They
On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 16:50 +0200, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Have you tried the Disposition of Comments? I don't know how accessible
they are to Google.
They are accessible through the list archive at W3C. I've looked at
those I found but I found no listing of all XSL-related ones.
Thanks, Peter. I went looking for that reference but wasn't lucky. I
gave up after almost 30 minutes. Could you dig up that reference for us?
The only post I found was one by G. Ken Holman which was never answered:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xsl-editors/2005AprJun/0028
On 21.06.2006
On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 12:01 +0200, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Thanks, Peter. I went looking for that reference but wasn't lucky. I
gave up after almost 30 minutes. Could you dig up that reference for us?
The only post I found was one by G. Ken Holman which was never answered:
On 21.06.2006 16:19:30 Peter B. West wrote:
On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 12:01 +0200, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Thanks, Peter. I went looking for that reference but wasn't lucky. I
gave up after almost 30 minutes. Could you dig up that reference for us?
The only post I found was one by G. Ken
On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 16:24 +0200, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
On 21.06.2006 16:19:30 Peter B. West wrote:
On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 12:01 +0200, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Thanks, Peter. I went looking for that reference but wasn't lucky. I
gave up after almost 30 minutes. Could you dig up that
On 21.06.2006 16:34:20 Peter B. West wrote:
On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 16:24 +0200, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
On 21.06.2006 16:19:30 Peter B. West wrote:
On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 12:01 +0200, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Thanks, Peter. I went looking for that reference but wasn't lucky. I
gave up
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
On 19.06.2006 15:45:36 Luca Furini wrote:
It seems to me that the prescribed behaviour requires a keep constraint
with force = always to be satisfied *always* :-), even if this would
mean having some overflowing content.
Obviously, we disagree here. I read it so
Luca Furini wrote:
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
On 19.06.2006 15:45:36 Luca Furini wrote:
It seems to me that the prescribed behaviour requires a keep
constraint with force = always to be satisfied *always* :-), even
if this would mean having some overflowing content.
Obviously, we disagree
On 18.06.2006 20:57:51 Simon Pepping wrote:
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 07:36:45PM +0800, Manuel Mall wrote:
I had a quick fiddle in one area and changed the Knuth penalty generated
for a keep...=always from INFINITE to INFINITE-1. In my few test
cases that seem to have resolved the issue.
FYI: I'm planning to refactor the breaking algorithm in order to
implement floats. I'll see what can be done in this area. Just keep in
touch.
Vincent
Manuel Mall a écrit :
On Monday 19 June 2006 16:45, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
On 18.06.2006 20:57:51 Simon Pepping wrote:
On Sun, Jun 18,
On Monday 19 June 2006 20:25, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
On 19.06.2006 13:38:56 Manuel Mall wrote:
On Monday 19 June 2006 16:45, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
On 18.06.2006 20:57:51 Simon Pepping wrote:
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 07:36:45PM +0800, Manuel Mall wrote:
snip/
Or should we use a
On 19.06.2006 14:45:02 Manuel Mall wrote:
snip/
What is still unclear to me is if it is worthwhile to implement this two
pass approach, i.e. use INFINITE penalties first and relax later, or if
it is good enough for 99.99% of cases just to start with INFINITE-1
penalties for mandatory
Manuel Mall wrote:
What is still unclear to me is if it is worthwhile to implement this
two pass approach, i.e. use INFINITE penalties first and relax later, or if
it is good enough for 99.99% of cases just to start with INFINITE-1
penalties for mandatory keeps?
I think the second pass is
On 19.06.2006 15:45:36 Luca Furini wrote:
Manuel Mall wrote:
What is still unclear to me is if it is worthwhile to implement this
two pass approach, i.e. use INFINITE penalties first and relax later, or if
it is good enough for 99.99% of cases just to start with INFINITE-1
penalties
17 matches
Mail list logo
