Re: [VOTE] Merge Knuth branch back into HEAD

2005-05-13 Thread Jeremias Maerki
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

RE: [VOTE] Merge Knuth branch back into HEAD

2005-05-13 Thread Andreas L. Delmelle
> -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

Re: [VOTE] Merge Knuth branch back into HEAD

2005-05-13 Thread Jeremias Maerki
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

RE: [VOTE] Merge Knuth branch back into HEAD

2005-05-12 Thread Andreas L. Delmelle
> -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 >

Re: [VOTE] Merge Knuth branch back into HEAD

2005-05-11 Thread Jeremias Maerki
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

Re: [VOTE] Merge Knuth branch back into HEAD

2005-05-11 Thread 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

Re: [VOTE] Merge Knuth branch back into HEAD

2005-05-11 Thread Luca Furini
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

Re: [VOTE] Merge Knuth branch back into HEAD

2005-05-11 Thread Chris Bowditch
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

Re: [VOTE] Merge Knuth branch back into HEAD

2005-05-10 Thread Jeremias Maerki
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

Re: [VOTE] Merge Knuth branch back into HEAD

2005-05-10 Thread Peter B. West
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

Re: [VOTE] Merge Knuth branch back into HEAD

2005-05-10 Thread The Web Maestro
+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-

Re: [VOTE] Merge Knuth branch back into HEAD

2005-05-10 Thread Glen Mazza
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

RE: [VOTE] Merge Knuth branch back into HEAD

2005-05-10 Thread Andreas L. Delmelle
> -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... >

Re: [VOTE] Merge Knuth branch back into HEAD

2005-05-10 Thread Jeremias Maerki
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

Re: [VOTE] Merge Knuth branch back into HEAD

2005-05-10 Thread Simon Pepping
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