On 13.05.2005 18:01:44 Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
> > if you would like to take a stab at the collapsed border
> > resolution, then please do. I'll leave it aside for the moment and will
> > concentrate on implementing or fixing the rest of the important features
> > for table layout (BPD/height
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeremias Maerki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Jeremias,
> > [Me:]
> > ... I guess you could also see it as active (collapsing) vs. passive
> > (separated) border segments. In the collapsing model, the borders are
> > 'alive', which seems to be exactly the part
On 12.05.2005 22:00:54 Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
> I get carried away sometimes :-)
Happens to me all the time. This stuff gets so complicated.
> > I can see the potential benefit by not having to take all the
> > influencing border sources into account, but precalculating some border
> > an
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeremias Maerki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Hi,
> Hmm, I think you got the wrong impression. It's not that I'm having
> problems with the border resolution. This actually works fine by now even
> if it might need some additional tweaking for calculating new
>
Looks like we're ok for the merge. Shall I simply do it or does anyone
want to have a chance to commit his work before that? I'm not doing it
before I've fixed my current hardware problems anyway.
Jeremias Maerki
On 11.05.2005 10:45:41 Chris Bowditch wrote:
> I just tried running a sample FO that contained markers and got a nasty
> error.
> Are they broken due to the changes for Knuth page breaking.
Yes.
> Do you anticipate any pain in fixing them?
I can't tell, yet. I've simply ignored markers for n
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> Still, we're at a point where we should finally say yes or no to further
> pursuing the new page breaking approach. Merging the branch back into
> HEAD means a step back for a few features and on the other side a step
> forward especially for keeps.
My vote is
+1
> Over
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
I'm not where I would like to be, yet (with table layout). Over all,
there is still a number of problems to be solved. These are (potentially
incomplete list):
- Table layout including header, footer, spans and borders (*)
- Markers
- before-floats and footnotes
- keeps and b
On 11.05.2005 00:52:21 Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
> > > Jeremias, what do you mean with complexity in certain areas? Tables
> > > only, or are there other complexities that you perceived as
> > > overwhelming?
> >
> > No, it's mainly the complexity of the collapsed border model ...
>
> Yes, I've
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Still, we're at a point where we should finally say yes or no to further
pursuing the new page breaking approach. Merging the branch back into
HEAD means a step back for a few features and on the other side a step
forward especially for keeps. I got the impression that the te
+1
On May 10, 2005, at 9:38 AM, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
I'm not where I would like to be, yet (with table layout). Over all,
there is still a number of problems to be solved. These are
(potentially
incomplete list):
- Table layout including header, footer, spans and borders (*)
- Markers
- before-
Sounds good. +1.
Thanks,
Glen
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
I'm not where I would like to be, yet (with table layout). Over all,
there is still a number of problems to be solved. These are (potentially
incomplete list):
- Table layout including header, footer, spans and borders (*)
- Markers
- before-flo
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeremias Maerki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On 10.05.2005 20:41:19 Simon Pepping wrote:
>
Hi guys,
For starters: my vote is +1.
I agree with Simon, and also very much feel like we're on the right track
with this. Sure, it will *still* take some work...
>
On 10.05.2005 20:41:19 Simon Pepping wrote:
> My worry with the new approach is performance: We know that the
> algorithms require quite some computational steps, but we have no idea
> whether in the end performance on a large document will be acceptable
> or not. (Perhaps Luca has some experiment
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 06:38:49PM +0200, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> Still, we're at a point where we should finally say yes or no to further
> pursuing the new page breaking approach. Merging the branch back into
> HEAD means a step back for a few features and on the other side a step
> forward espe
15 matches
Mail list logo