(I see that Jeremias agrees with Andreas about how to interpret the nested
keeps, so I reply just once)
Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
In very rough terms, the logic behind it would be:
if a given break #1 has a plain adjustment ratio of 3 and a governing
keep of auto,
and the next break #2,
On Jul 20, 2007, at 10:52, Luca Furini wrote:
Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
That's one detail I was still unsure about. Only if the other
factors remain identical, the algorithm would prefer a break at
penalty 50 over one at penalty 100... but if the value of the
penalty is only of marginal
Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
That's one detail I was still unsure about. Only if the other factors
remain identical, the algorithm would prefer a break at penalty 50
over one at penalty 100... but if the value of the penalty is only of
marginal influence as you suggest, then this would indeed
FWIW, I completely agree with the realization that integer keep values
cannot be directly mapped to penalty values and that the breaking algorithm
may have to be called multiple times with different penalty values to
get the right results.
more inline...
On 20.07.2007 10:52:59 Luca Furini wrote:
Firstly, hi all! It has been quite a long time since I last posted or
committed anything, but I'm still here!. :-)
Then, congratulations for all the great progresses fop is making!
And finally, concerning the keeps ...
Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
[inserting penalties with higher value to
On Jul 19, 2007, at 04:06, Manuel Mall wrote:
snip /
Sorry Andreas but I still don't get it. We have this test case
fo:blockThis is fo:inline keep-together.within-
line=alwaysBlah blah blah blah!/fo:inline/fo:block
OK, then. Where ?
Cheers
Andreas
On Thursday 19 July 2007 19:27, Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
On Jul 19, 2007, at 04:06, Manuel Mall wrote:
snip /
Sorry Andreas but I still don't get it. We have this test case
fo:blockThis is fo:inline keep-together.within-
line=alwaysBlah blah blah blah!/fo:inline/fo:block
OK, then.
On Jul 19, 2007, at 13:34, Manuel Mall wrote:
On Thursday 19 July 2007 19:27, Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
On Jul 19, 2007, at 04:06, Manuel Mall wrote:
snip /
Sorry Andreas but I still don't get it. We have this test case
fo:blockThis is fo:inline keep-together.within-
line=alwaysBlah blah
On Jul 19, 2007, at 10:49, Luca Furini wrote:
Hi Luca
Firstly, hi all! It has been quite a long time since I last posted
or committed anything, but I'm still here!. :-)
Then, congratulations for all the great progresses fop is making!
Good to see you're still monitoring. :-)
Andreas L.
On Thursday 19 July 2007 19:49, Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
On Jul 19, 2007, at 13:34, Manuel Mall wrote:
On Thursday 19 July 2007 19:27, Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
On Jul 19, 2007, at 04:06, Manuel Mall wrote:
snip /
Sorry Andreas but I still don't get it. We have this test case
On Jul 19, 2007, at 18:45, Manuel Mall wrote:
snip /
And in doing so, we would eventually end up back where FOP Trunk
started in 2002: a monolithic black box, which becomes harder and
harder to maintain and extend over time.
That's more the nature of my concern: that we do not fall prey to bad
On Jul 18, 2007, at 20:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Manuel others
Author: manuel
Date: Wed Jul 18 11:06:09 2007
New Revision: 557347
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=557347
Log:
Added support for keep-togther.within-line=always
Cool to see this implemented so quickly!
On
On Thursday 19 July 2007 02:31, Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
On Jul 18, 2007, at 20:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Manuel others
Author: manuel
Date: Wed Jul 18 11:06:09 2007
New Revision: 557347
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=557347
Log:
Added support for
On Jul 19, 2007, at 01:31, Manuel Mall wrote:
snip /
I don't quite understand what you are trying to say here. The test
case
in question checks the use of keep-together.within-line=always in
the
context of fo:block, fo:inline and fo:marker.
Nope. For the sake of completeness, this is
On Thursday 19 July 2007 08:39, Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
On Jul 19, 2007, at 01:31, Manuel Mall wrote:
snip /
I don't quite understand what you are trying to say here. The test
case
in question checks the use of keep-together.within-line=always in
the
context of fo:block, fo:inline
15 matches
Mail list logo
