|
Heh, yep, what this thread needed was definitely to be turned into the same endless argument as every other orphans/widows thread :-P
Might as well pile on I guess :-)
Setting it to 0 is clearly unjustifiable in any context - all you're doing is setting an invalid number, and counting on each individual reader implementation to do its error-checking correctly. At best, you get an unpredictable result, at worst, you'd maybe cause a bad reader to crash.
On further exploration of my original question - it appears that the kepub reader doesn't so much "ignore" the setting, as it appears to simply not have any orphan/widow processing implemented in the first place, so implicitly, it works as if the value was always set to 1.
|