-Original Message-
From: J.Pietschmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Joerg,
Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
Try specifying: keep-together=always on the table-rows.
Using both keep-together=always and keep-with-next=always
on all rows of a table longet than a page will send FOP into
!!!ATTENTION CE COURRIER N'EST PAS ARRIVE A DESTINATION!!!
Due a une très forte progression du SPAM sur notre boite aux lettres, nous vous
prions de bien vouloir transférer votre courriel a notre nouvelle adresse:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Merci de votre compréhension
Alacuisine.Net
!!!ATTENTION CE
Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
Just wondering: is this only the case when both properties have a value of
'always'? The OP seemed to be using a (low) integer value for
'keep-with-next', so I concluded --perhaps mistakenly so-- that there was no
risk of ending up with an infinite loop... since
Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
Try specifying: keep-together=always on the table-rows.
Using both keep-together=always and keep-with-next=always
on all rows of a table longet than a page will send FOP into
an infinite loop.
J.Pietschmann
From all that I have read (and tried myself), you've just hit FOP in its
weakest spot. The only think I can suggest is to chunk your content such
that a table never crosses a page boundary. Hopefully, the new effort on
FOP (about which I know very little) will do better with keeps and breaks.
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:25:44 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From all that I have read (and tried myself), you've just hit FOP in its
weakest spot. The only think I can suggest is to chunk your content such
that a table never crosses a page boundary.
Thats what I was afraid
-Original Message-
From: robert frapples [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
I have a bunch of tables, each with a bunch of rows, each with some
content. I set keep-with-next='1' for each row, expecting it to
page break between tables, which it does. . .
for the most part. If a
