W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xsl-fo@w3.org > March 2002

RE: Pushing the Limits

From: Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom@accesswave.ca>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 10:32:17 -0500 (EST)
To: "Peter B. West" <pbwest@powerup.com.au>, "'Www-Xsl-Fo" <www-xsl-fo@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NIECINNOJOOPPAIFLMIGKEGGCEAA.asandstrom@accesswave.ca>
Hi, Peter

On the orphans thing, my interpretation is that page 2 is truly empty. Block
2 has generated no areas into the main-reference-area in the page 2
content-rectangle at all. So "orphans" does not apply.

Good question about the "strength" of oprhans and widows, though. I dunno.

I read the spec differently when it comes to
repeatable-page-master-reference. If, in my example, the second
subsequence-specifier is a repeatable-page-master-reference with a
maximum-repeats of 1, the spec tells me that 0 or 1 generated pages is
acceptable. With the keep-together doing what it is doing, I would go with 0
pages, and this would be perfectly legal. Doing so would not violate

"A page-sequence
satisfies the constraint determined by an fo:page-sequence-master if (a) it
can be partitioned into a sequence of sub-sequences of pages that map
one-to-one to an initial sub-sequence of the sequence of
sub-sequence-specifiers that are the children of the fo:page-sequence-master
and, (b) for each sub-sequence of pages in the partition, that sub-sequence
satisfies the constraints of the corresponding sub-sequence-specifier. The
sequence of sub-sequences of pages can be shorter than the sequence of
sub-sequence-specifiers."

from the spec, because subsequence-specifier #2 (the
repeatable-page-master-reference) happily mapped to 0 pages.

Regards,
Arved

-----Original Message-----
From: www-xsl-fo-request@w3.org [mailto:www-xsl-fo-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Peter B. West
Sent: March 23, 2002 10:39 AM
To: 'Www-Xsl-Fo
Subject: Re: Pushing the Limits

Arved,

I agree with your interpretation.  Single-page-master-references (and
simple-page-masters) are associated with sub-sequences of one page.

I have a related question about repeatable-page-master-references.  What
do you do if the second master-reference in the page-sequence-master is
a repeatable-page-master-reference with a maximum-repeats of "1"?  Does
the fact that the sub-sequence of pages associated with that
repeatable-page-master-reference may be of length zero, mean that you
can skip the blank page?  I don't read it that way.  I read the
repeatable-page-master-reference to mean that I can have 0 to
maximum-repeats of that page, unless there are following pages.  Any
following pages can only be processed by a subsequent master-reference
after the maximum-repeats count has been reached.  Is that how you see it?

There's another question that seems to arise in connection with your
example, though.  What is the "strength" of the orphans value.  If the
first area generated by the ...QUITE A LOT OF STUFF... block is an empty
area on page 2, then orphans comes into play.  I don't recall any
specific instructions about the strength of widows/orphans relative to
keeps, so I assume its a user agent thing.  Is it legitimate to insist
that the orphans value be honoured on page 2?  (The keep is specified at
the lowest possible strength.)

Peter
Received on Sunday, 24 March 2002 07:49:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 3 October 2007 16:06:09 GMT