RML2PDF Test Suite - Test #9There should be a table on this page
These should have links.
Name
Email
Robin
("mailto:robin@reportlab.com",)
xxx
There should be a table on the next page
These should have links.
Name
Email
Robin
("mailto:robin@reportlab.com",)
xxx
keepWithNext and paragraph splitting = #1.
This tests the ability to make headings 'stick to' the paragraphs after them. The heading style
used is supposed to be kept with the next paragraph, even if this involves flopping onto the
next page. We have sized this text so that there is enough space for the heading below to
fit into the top frame. However, its style has a keepWithNext attribute set to 1, so it
should flop down into the bottom half. Cross your fingers....
This should be on the bottom half
To characterize a linguistic level L,
this selectionally introduced contextual
feature delimits the requirement that
branching is not tolerated within the
dominance scope of a complex
symbol. Notice, incidentally, that the
notion of level of grammaticalness
does not affect the structure of the
levels of acceptability from fairly high
(e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g.
(98d)). Suppose, for instance, that a
subset of English sentences interesting
on quite independent grounds appears
to correlate rather closely with an
important distinction in language use.
Presumably, this analysis of a
formative as a pair of sets of features is
not quite equivalent to the system of
base rules exclusive of the lexicon. We
have already seen that the appearance
of parasitic gaps in domains relatively
inaccessible to ordinary extraction
does not readily tolerate the strong
generative capacity of the theory.
keepWithNext and paragraph splitting - #2.
This time the style has keepWithNext turned OFF. The paragraph below should
be in the top half.
This should be on the top half
To characterize a linguistic level L,
this selectionally introduced contextual
feature delimits the requirement that
branching is not tolerated within the
dominance scope of a complex
symbol. Notice, incidentally, that the
notion of level of grammaticalness
does not affect the structure of the
levels of acceptability from fairly high
(e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g.
(98d)). Suppose, for instance, that a
subset of English sentences interesting
on quite independent grounds appears
to correlate rather closely with an
important distinction in language use.
Presumably, this analysis of a
formative as a pair of sets of features is
not quite equivalent to the system of
base rules exclusive of the lexicon. We
have already seen that the appearance
of parasitic gaps in domains relatively
inaccessible to ordinary extraction
does not readily tolerate the strong
generative capacity of the theory.