Hi Jeremias,
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
IMO, both possibilities in your example below would be correct. If the
keep-with-next is set on the table-row, it applies to all table-cells of
that row because table-row itself doesn't produce any areas. In both
your examples the table-cell produces an area (potentially with no
children, i.e. no text). The keep constraint doesn't have any effect on
the contents of the table-cell. Do I make any sense?
Definitely, and that’s also how I interpret it. But since keeps don’t
apply to table-cell, I was wondering if keep on table-row shouldn’t be
passed over directly to the cells’ children. But as table-cell does
generate areas, our interpretation may be valid. But then I’m wondering
why you can’t specify keeps on table-cell.
And it may also be interesting to note that both XEP and XSL Formatter
put some content from all the cells on the second page (second solution
below).
So I think I’ll still send a request for clarification.
Thanks for your input,
Vincent
On 21.02.2008 17:14:49 Vincent Hennebert wrote:
Hi Guys,
If anyone has any comment to make on this before I send another request
for clarification to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
fo:table-row does not generate any area, so the text in section 4.8,
“Keeps and Breaks” doesn’t really apply to this element.
The question is: if keep-with-next is set on fo:table-row, shall we
consider that this is equivalent to setting keep-with-next to the last
child block of /every/ cell ending on this row, or that this is enough
if at least one table-cell ending on this row is not trailing in the
applicable reference area?
Illustration:
fo:table-row keep-with-next=always
fo:table-cell
fo:blockCell 1.1 Line 1/fo:block
fo:blockCell 1.1 Line 2/fo:block
fo:blockCell 1.1 Line 3/fo:block
/fo:table-cell
fo:table-cell
fo:blockCell 1.2 Line 1/fo:block
fo:blockCell 1.2 Line 2/fo:block
/fo:table-cell
/fo:table-row
fo:table-row
fo:table-cell
fo:blockCell 2.1 Line 1/fo:block
fo:blockCell 2.1 Line 2/fo:block
/fo:table-cell
fo:table-cell
fo:blockCell 2.2 Line 1/fo:block
fo:blockCell 2.2 Line 2/fo:block
/fo:table-cell
/fo:table-row
Is the following rendering correct:
_
| | |
| Cell 1.1 Line 1 | Cell 1.2 Line 1 |
| Cell 1.1 Line 2 | Cell 1.2 Line 2 |
--- Page break
| Cell 1.1 Line 3 | |
|_|_|
| | |
| Cell 2.1 Line 1 | Cell 2.2 Line 1 |
| Cell 2.1 Line 2 | Cell 2.2 Line 2 |
|_|_|
or can it only be like the following:
_
| | |
| Cell 1.1 Line 1 | Cell 1.2 Line 1 |
--- Page break
| Cell 1.1 Line 2 | Cell 1.2 Line 2 |
| Cell 1.1 Line 3 | |
|_|_|
| | |
| Cell 2.1 Line 1 | Cell 2.2 Line 1 |
| Cell 2.1 Line 2 | Cell 2.2 Line 2 |
|_|_|
Personally I’d go with the first possibility.
Jeremias Maerki
--
Vincent HennebertAnyware Technologies
http://people.apache.org/~vhennebert http://www.anyware-tech.com
Apache FOP Committer FOP Development/Consulting
