Re: keep-together question

Hi,
That can be achieved using an integer value rather than 'always'.
See [1] (compliance page) & [2] (XSL-FO rec v1.1) for further info.

NOTE: keep-together should be considered as a shorthand for
*.within-line, *.within-column, and *.within-page
It's a good practice to set only the desired property, rather than the
shorthand one, to avoid unexpected behavior regarding the inline axis.

[1] http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/compliance.html
[2] https://www.w3.org/TR/xsl/#keep-together

2016-02-24 22:11 GMT+01:00 Matthew R. Wilson <[email protected]>:
> Hello,
>
> I'm using FOP 2.1 and wondering if I can accomplish the pagination I
> want. My example XML is attached. Essentially, what I'm wondering is if
> I can get the behavior of keep-together="always" on a block but still
> allow pagination if the block is too big to fit on one page.
>
> In my example, there are three sections. I want complete sections to
> appear together on one page, so I'm putting keep-together="always" on a
> block that wraps the section. This usually works the way I want, only
> putting in a page break between sections if the next section doesn't fit
> in the remaining space on the page.
>
> However, my example section 3 is too big to fit even on a dedicated
> page, so at render-time I get the warning from FOP that it exceeds the
> page size.
>
> So my question: is there a way to get the behavior of keeping sections
> together on a page when possible, but if it's not possible, allow
> pagination?
>
> The example I've attached is very simple in that I just
> keep-together="always" on the block. But I've also tried variations that
> include making each individual text line block have a
> keep-with-previous="always", and I've tried integer values instead of
> "always". But what I don't know is how much I'm running into limitations
> of my own knowledge about how to correctly do this, versus FOP's
> limitations with keep support.
>
> I'd appreciate any suggestions, or it'd be good to know it's not
> possible with current implementation if that's the case.
>
> Thank you,
> Matthew
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]



-- 
pascal