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


Arved Sandstrom wrote:

>Hi, all
>
>I've got a question related to keeps. Let's say that I have 2
>simple-page-masters defined: one called "small", with a fairly small
>region-body, and one called "large", with a larger region-body.
>
>The flow content looks like
>
><fo:block break-after="page">NOT MUCH STUFF</fo:block>
>
><fo:block keep-together.within-page="1">
>    .... QUITE A LOT OF STUFF ....
></fo:block>
>
>The fo:flow, for sake of simplicity, contains these only. Simple-page-master
>(SPM) "small" cannot accommodate the second block, but SPM "large" can.
>Furthermore, the containing page-sequence maps to
>
><fo:page-sequence-master master-name="psm">
>    <fo:single-page-master-reference master-reference="small"/>
>    <fo:single-page-master-reference master-reference="small"/>
>    <fo:repeatable-page-master-reference master-reference="large"/>
></fo:page-sequence-master>
>
>With this you can probably already see where I am going. :-) Now, without
>casting aspersions on RenderX, I used the latest XEP to test this out, and I
>see an initial page, laid out using simple-page-master (SPM) "small",
>containing the areas generated by the first block, and a second page laid
>out using SPM "large", containing the areas generated by the first block, as
>a result.
>
>_I_ expect to see a SPM "small", with content from block 1, a blank page
>using SPM "small", and a third page using SPM "large", that contains (and is
>designed to contain) all the areas generated by block 2.
>
>The reason I expect to see this is because, number one, the spec (in Section
>6.4.7) states that
>
>"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."
>
>Clause (a) indicates that we MUST make use of SPM "small" exactly twice:
>one-to-one mapping to an _initial_ subsequence. Or we don't make use of the
>page-sequence-master at all; I figure a reasonable fallback is to switch to
>SPM "large" for all pages but I don't know one way or the other.
>
>The Recommendation section on keeps also makes it clear that the keep
>condition on block 2 MUST be satisfied - there are no breaks, or stronger
>keeps, that conflict. And it can be satisfied by starting block 2 on page 3.
>
>I submit that my expected result is the logical conclusion of spec
>constraints, as jarring as it may be to have that blank page 2.
>
>Counter-arguments? Comments? Proofs that I really should be asleep by now?
>:-)
>
>Thanks.
>AHS
>______________________________
>Arved Sandstrom
>Sr Software Developer
>Platform Products Group
>Halifax R&D Office
>Hummingbird Ltd
>
>

Received on Saturday, 23 March 2002 09:39:20 UTC