Quote:
Originally Posted by davidfor
Any change, including the @page or widows and orphans could change were the page breaks will be. And without seeing the book and the settings you are using, it isn't possible to try and judge what is happening.
|
I agree, however my book does not have any user defined widows or orphans settings in the css. The book should use the default settings of 2.
I'll add the widows and orphans properties (set to 1 as that is the lowest valid integer value) and check if it 'behaves' differently.
If you want a copy of the book I can sent you one.
UPDATE: adding widow and orphans values of 1 to the book seems to solve my reported issue.
I also have tested it with 0 (an invalid value) but it does solve the reported issue.
The problem is back when I manually set the values to default (2).
If any member of the Kobo development team reads this topic: consider to change the default values for widows and orphans to 1. Yes, I'm aware that is not in line with the standard but it improves the overall behaviour of your readers.
I used the word 'solve' above but 'improve' is probably a more accurate description. Different pages are filled with text more evenly (the same amount of text on every page).
Quote:
Originally Posted by arspr
Just in case (as looking for it can be a real PITA). Here is the link to my post where w&o, or as davidfor says, who knows what other possible thing, is shown as somehow buggy. There's some unneeded extra space at the bottom of the page, but in no way as extremely big as the long paragraph issue and, more over, without any kind of long paragraph involved... |
Yep, that books looks very much like mine and happens indeed
without any kind of
long paragraph involved.
That is also why I described it as similar to LPB. Thanks for the link, I doubt if I had found it using the forums search options.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybmole
that would be the section where it is pendantically & nitpickingly asserted that zero is not a nacceptable value and that only foolish amateurs like & myself, & microsoft, think differently 
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...(v=vs.85).aspx
....
Internet explorer development center
...
orphans: integer
Property values
integer
A String that specifies or receives the minimum number of lines to print at the bottom of a page.
CSS information
...
Initial Value 0
so there you have it, ignore that whole absurd section like the man says |
Yes, css2 always accepted the 0 value for widows and orphans, but is that is now changed to 1 (in line with css3). The W3C
CSS Validation Service now rejects widows or orphans set to 0 but always accepted this value before. That is the standard now, whether i like it or not and is also a different discussion.