keep-*="always" seems to be ambiguous

In a recent discussion on FOP-land, it turned out that the "always"
value for the keep-* properties can be interpreted in two directions:

1. keep conditions with a strength of "always" may never be relaxed
simply based on the value's name: "always". Only numeric keep strengths
may be relaxed.

2. keep conditions with a strength of "always" may be relaxed if they
cannot be satisfied. This view is based on the wording in the last
paragraph of [1], ignoring the implicit meaning of the word "always".
"always" in this case is simply a value that's stronger than any other
value (this is also backed by the spec text).


A quick test reveals that some implementations use interpretation 1 and
risk overflowing a page in b-p-direction, for example. Other
implementations use interpretation 2 and relax the keep constraint to
avoid overflow.

G. Ken Holman asked the same question last year but he didn't get an

Could anyone please shed some light on the intended behaviour here?

Jeremias Maerki

Received on Monday, 10 July 2006 12:22:02 UTC