xmlgraphics-fop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Vincent Hennebert" <vhenneb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Some comments on improving the algorithm for before-floats
Date Wed, 16 Aug 2006 08:31:06 GMT
Hi Simon,

Ok, I've taken out my LaTeX book again to be sure I understand you.

> Vincent,
>
> Your proposal to improve the algorithm for the placement of footnotes
> and before-floats sounds fine. A few comments.
>
> 'Ideally there would be a configuration setting telling which ratio of
> the page should be filled with normal content; if this ratio is null
> then pages only made of out-of-line objects would be allowed.' I think
> this may be split into several configuration settings:
> - The minimum amount of normal content on a page.

OK. This corresponds to the \textfraction parameter, right?


> - Whether float pages are allowed. Even when the minimum amount is not
>   zero, the user may set this to true.

OK. ...mmmh, found no dedicated LaTeX parameter for that.
\floatpagefraction=0?


> - The minimum amount of float content on a float page before it may be
>   considered feasible. Only relying on the normal demerits calculation
>   for the stretch or shrink may be too restrictive.

Moreover, if the figures are made of images, there is likely to be few
shrink/stretch.
This is also the \floatpagefraction parameter? Actually I don't really
understand this parameter. At least, I don't understand its interest:
this means that underfull float-only pages are acceptable? This looks
weird to me.

But as it would be easy to implement, I can do it. Related question:
would footnotes be allowed on float-only pages, or only before-floats?
This may be useful for books with many many footnotes. But for other
books this can look weird. WDYT? Another config parameter?


> In fact, these are configuration parameters in LaTeX.
>
> Regarding the demerits for deferred out-of-line objects, a simple
> multiplication with the page difference produces a linear
> relation. This may be too weak, and a squared or steeper relation may
> be preferable.

No. Period.

Ok, some explanations ;-) This would break the property of optimal
substructure which makes the dynamic programming approach work. In his
thesis, Plass proved that using a squared function leads to an
NP-complete problem. In "Pagination Reconsidered", Br├╝ggeman-Klein et
al. showed that using a linear function is nearer to a human's feelings,
is solvable by dynamic programming, and gives satisfying results. So
I think we may go with it.


> Regards, Simon

Thank you,
Vincent
Mime
View raw message