1
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" standalone="no" ?>
2
<!DOCTYPE document SYSTEM "rml_1_0.dtd">
3
<document filename="test_029_keepinframe.pdf" debug="0" invariant="0" compression="1">
6
<template pageSize="(595, 842)" leftMargin="72" showBoundary="1">
7
<pageTemplate id="main">
9
<setFont name="Helvetica-BoldOblique" size="18"/>
10
<drawRightString x="523" y="800">RML2PDF Test Suite - Test #029 keepInFrame</drawRightString>
12
<frame id="F1" x1="2.5cm" y1="15.5cm" width="170" height="284"/>
13
<frame id="F2" x1="11.5cm" y1="15.5cm" width="170" height="284"/>
14
<frame id="F3" x1="2.5cm" y1="2.5cm" width="170" height="284"/>
15
<frame id="F4" x1="11.5cm" y1="2.5cm" width="170" height="284"/>
18
<pageTemplate id="newsletter">
20
<setFont name="Helvetica-BoldOblique" size="18"/>
21
<drawRightString x="523" y="800">RML2PDF Test Suite - Test #029 keepInFrame</drawRightString>
23
<frame id="top" x1="10%" y1="80%" width="80%" height="10%"/>
24
<frame id="upper" x1="10%" y1="60%" width="55%" height="15%"/>
25
<frame id="middle" x1="10%" y1="35%" width="55%" height="20%"/>
26
<frame id="lowerleft" x1="10%" y1="10%" width="25%" height="20%"/>
27
<frame id="lowerright" x1="40%" y1="10%" width="25%" height="20%"/>
28
<frame id="sidebar" x1="70%" y1="10%" width="20%" height="65%"/>
36
<alias id="bt" value="style.BodyText"/>
67
<!--this style used for a tablerow example later on in document-->
68
<blockTableStyle id="simple">
69
<blockValign start="0,0" stop="-1,-1" value="TOP"/>
70
<blockFont name="Helvetica" size="6" leading="7"/>
71
<blockBottomPadding length="1"/>
72
<blockTopPadding length="1"/>
73
<lineStyle kind="INNERGRID" colorName="gray" start="0,0" stop="-1,-1" thickness="0.25"/>
74
<lineStyle kind="BOX" colorName="black" start="0,0" stop="-1,-1" thickness="0.25"/>
77
<blockTableStyle id="summary" parent="simple">
78
<blockBackground colorName="cyan"/>
79
<blockFont name="Helvetica-Bold" size="6" leading="7"/>
82
<blockTableStyle id="continuation" parent="simple">
83
<blockBackground colorName="silver"/>
84
<blockFont name="Helvetica-Oblique" size="6" leading="7"/>
91
<keepInFrame onOverflow = "shrink" id="ff1">
92
<para style="h1">First Try at a keepInFrame</para>
94
This will behave just like part of a story, as long as it all
98
To characterize a linguistic level L,
99
this selectionally introduced contextual
100
feature delimits the requirement that
101
branching is not tolerated within the
102
dominance scope of a complex
103
symbol. <font color="red">Notice</font>, incidentally, that the
104
notion of level of grammaticalness
105
does not affect the structure of the
106
levels of acceptability from fairly high
107
(e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g.
108
(98d)). Suppose, for instance, that a
109
subset of English sentences interesting
110
on quite independent grounds appears
111
to correlate rather closely with an
112
important distinction in language use.
113
Presumably, this analysis of a
114
formative as a pair of sets of features is
115
not quite equivalent to the system of
116
base rules exclusive of the lexicon. We
117
have already seen that the appearance
118
of parasitic gaps in domains relatively
119
inaccessible to ordinary extraction
120
does not readily tolerate the strong
121
generative capacity of the theory.
125
<keepInFrame onOverflow = "shrink" id="ff2">
126
<para style="h1">keepInFrame with a table inside</para>
128
<blockTableStyle id="tablestyle_000">
129
<blockValign start="0,0" stop="-1,-1" value="TOP"/>
130
<lineStyle kind="INNERGRID" colorName="black" start="0,0" stop="-1,-1" thickness="0.25"/>
131
<lineStyle kind="BOX" colorName="black" start="0,0" stop="-1,-1" thickness="0.25"/>
133
<tr><td>alignment</td><td>align
135
<tr><td>bulletColor</td><td>bulletcolor
137
<tr><td>bulletFontName</td><td>bfont
138
bulletfontname</td></tr>
139
<tr><td>bulletFontSize</td><td>bfontsize
140
bulletfontsize</td></tr>
141
<tr><td>bulletIndent</td><td>bindent
142
bulletindent</td></tr>
143
<tr><td>firstLineIndent</td><td>findent
144
firstlineindent</td></tr>
145
<tr><td>fontName</td><td>face
148
<tr><td>fontSize</td><td>size
150
<tr><td>leading</td><td>leading</td></tr>
151
<tr><td>leftIndent</td><td>leftindent
153
<tr><td>rightIndent</td><td>rightindent
155
<tr><td>spaceAfter</td><td>spaceafter
157
<tr><td>spaceBefore</td><td>spacebefore
159
<tr><td>textColor</td><td>fg
165
<keepInFrame onOverflow = "shrink" id="ff3">
166
<para style="h1">A long keepInFrame, shrinks</para>
168
To characterize a linguistic level L,
169
this selectionally introduced contextual
170
feature delimits the requirement that
171
branching is not tolerated within the
172
dominance scope of a complex
173
symbol. Notice, incidentally, that the
174
notion of level of grammaticalness
175
does not affect the structure of the
176
levels of acceptability from fairly high
177
(e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g.
178
(98d)). Suppose, for instance, that a
179
subset of English sentences interesting
180
on quite independent grounds appears
181
to correlate rather closely with an
182
important distinction in language use.
183
Presumably, this analysis of a
184
formative as a pair of sets of features is
185
not quite equivalent to the system of
186
base rules exclusive of the lexicon. We
187
have already seen that the appearance
188
of parasitic gaps in domains relatively
189
inaccessible to ordinary extraction
190
does not readily tolerate the strong
191
generative capacity of the theory.
192
On our assumptions, a descriptively adequate grammar delimits the strong
193
generative capacity of the theory. For one thing, the fundamental error
194
of regarding functional notions as categorial is to be regarded as a
195
corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the
196
paired utterance test. A majority of informed linguistic specialists
197
agree that the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively
198
inaccessible to ordinary extraction is necessary to impose an
199
interpretation on the requirement that branching is not tolerated within
200
the dominance scope of a complex symbol. It may be, then, that the
201
speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition appears to correlate rather
202
closely with the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any
203
proposed grammar. Analogously, the notion of level of grammaticalness
204
may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate a general convention
205
regarding the forms of the grammar.
209
<keepInFrame onOverflow = "shrink" id="ff4">
210
<para style="h1">2 keepInFrame (inner split)</para>
211
<para style="bt" textColor="pink">
212
To characterize a linguistic level L,
213
this selectionally introduced contextual
214
feature delimits the requirement that
215
branching is not tolerated within the
216
dominance scope of a complex
217
symbol. Notice, incidentally, that the
218
notion of level of grammaticalness
219
does not affect the structure of the
220
levels of acceptability from fairly high
221
(e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g.
222
(98d)). Suppose, for instance, that a
223
subset of English sentences interesting
224
on quite independent grounds appears
225
to correlate rather closely with an
226
important distinction in language use.
227
Presumably, this analysis of a
228
formative as a pair of sets of features is
229
not quite equivalent to the system of
230
base rules exclusive of the lexicon. We
231
have already seen that the appearance
232
of parasitic gaps in domains relatively
233
inaccessible to ordinary extraction
234
does not readily tolerate the strong
235
generative capacity of the theory.
237
<keepInFrame maxHeight="100" onOverflow = "shrink" id="ff5">
238
<para style="h1">Inner Starts</para>
239
<para style="bt" textColor="yellow">
240
On our assumptions, a descriptively adequate grammar delimits the strong
241
generative capacity of the theory. For one thing, the fundamental error
242
of regarding functional notions as categorial is to be regarded as a
243
corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the
244
paired utterance test. A majority of informed linguistic specialists
245
agree that the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively
246
inaccessible to ordinary extraction is necessary to impose an
247
interpretation on the requirement that branching is not tolerated within
248
the dominance scope of a complex symbol. It may be, then, that the
249
speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition appears to correlate rather
250
closely with the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any
251
proposed grammar. Analogously, the notion of level of grammaticalness
252
may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate a general convention
253
regarding the forms of the grammar.
255
<para style="h1">Inner Ends</para>
257
<para style="bt" textColor="magenta">
258
We have already seen that the natural general principle that will
259
subsume this case cannot be arbitrary in the requirement that branching
260
is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol.
261
Notice, incidentally, that the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition is
262
to be regarded as the strong generative capacity of the theory. A
263
consequence of the approach just outlined is that the descriptive power
264
of the base component does not affect the structure of the levels of
265
acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g.
266
(98d)). By combining adjunctions and certain deformations, a
267
descriptively adequate grammar cannot be arbitrary in the strong
268
generative capacity of the theory.
272
<nextFrame name="F4"/>
273
<keepInFrame onOverflow = "overflow" id="ff6">
274
<para style="h1">onOverflow = "overflow" in Frame F4</para>
276
This will behave just like part of a story, as long as it all
280
To characterize a linguistic level L,
281
this selectionally introduced contextual
282
feature delimits the requirement that
283
branching is not tolerated within the
284
dominance scope of a complex
285
symbol. <font color="red">Notice</font>, incidentally, that the
286
notion of level of grammaticalness
287
does not affect the structure of the
288
levels of acceptability from fairly high
289
(e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g.
290
(98d)). Suppose, for instance, that a
291
subset of English sentences interesting
292
on quite independent grounds appears
293
to correlate rather closely with an
294
important distinction in language use.
295
Presumably, this analysis of a
296
formative as a pair of sets of features is
297
not quite equivalent to the system of
298
base rules exclusive of the lexicon. We
299
have already seen that the appearance
300
of parasitic gaps in domains relatively
301
inaccessible to ordinary extraction
302
does not readily tolerate the strong
303
generative capacity of the theory.
306
<keepInFrame onOverflow = "truncate" id="ff7" frame="F1">
307
<para style="h1">onOverflow = "truncate" in frame F1</para>
309
This will behave just like part of a story, as long as it all
313
To characterize a linguistic level L,
314
this selectionally introduced contextual
315
feature delimits the requirement that
316
branching is not tolerated within the
317
dominance scope of a complex
318
symbol. <font color="red">Notice</font>, incidentally, that the
319
notion of level of grammaticalness
320
does not affect the structure of the
321
levels of acceptability from fairly high
322
(e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g.
323
(98d)). Suppose, for instance, that a
324
subset of English sentences interesting
325
on quite independent grounds appears
326
to correlate rather closely with an
327
important distinction in language use.
328
Presumably, this analysis of a
329
formative as a pair of sets of features is
330
not quite equivalent to the system of
331
base rules exclusive of the lexicon. We
332
have already seen that the appearance
333
of parasitic gaps in domains relatively
334
inaccessible to ordinary extraction
335
does not readily tolerate the strong
336
generative capacity of the theory.
340
<setNextTemplate name="newsletter"/>
343
<!-- from now on we can explore a totally different style of coding -
344
story says explicitly what goes where-->
346
A new way to lay things out....
349
This tag lets us handle layouts like newsletters and factsheets in a much more
350
natural style. In documents like this, one does not want stuff to leak out of the
351
intended box into the next one. You wrap your content in <keepInFrame> tags
352
and explicitly tell it where to go. The order of this page naturally goes top, upper, middle,
353
bottomleft, bottomright, sidebar.
356
<keepInFrame frame="sidebar" onOverflow="error">
358
I drew this stuff second, out of the natural order, putting it within a tag saying
359
<keepInFrame frame="sidebar" overflow="error">.
362
Havng done this, if I had too much content, there would an error warning me. I can put
363
an ID in to identify it if I want. I can also specify other behaviours for full frames - shrink, truncate,
368
<keepInFrame frame="upper" onOverflow="error">
370
I drew this stuff third, out of the natural order. This should be in the upper frame, below the top.
374
<keepInFrame frame="middle" onOverflow="error">
376
this goes in the middle frame.
380
<keepInFrame frame="lowerright" onOverflow="error">
382
this goes in the bottom right, and was drawn before the stuff on the left..
386
<keepInFrame frame="lowerleft" onOverflow="error">
388
and finally the bottom left.
397
We now overfill with rubbish etc etc and use onOverflow="shrink"
400
<keepInFrame frame="sidebar" onOverflow="shrink">
402
I drew this stuff second, out of the natural order, putting it within a tag saying
403
<keepInFrame frame="sidebar" overflow="shrink">.
406
Of course, this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features
407
can be defined in such a way as to impose an important distinction in
408
language use. Nevertheless, the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition
409
may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate the levels of acceptability
410
from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g. (98d)). By
411
combining adjunctions and certain deformations, the notion of level of
412
grammaticalness is rather different from a descriptive fact. I
413
suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that the
414
speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition is to be regarded as the levels of
415
acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g.
416
(98d)). A consequence of the approach just outlined is that this
417
selectionally introduced contextual feature is not to be considered in
418
determining irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules.
420
<spacer length="10"/>
422
So far, the systematic use of complex symbols is necessary to impose an
423
interpretation on nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature
424
theory. It must be emphasized, once again, that most of the
425
methodological work in modern linguistics is rather different from the
426
requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope
427
of a complex symbol. Conversely, a descriptively adequate grammar can
428
be defined in such a way as to impose a stipulation to place the
429
constructions into these various categories. If the position of the
430
trace in (99c) were only relatively inaccessible to movement, relational
431
information does not affect the structure of the traditional practice of
432
grammarians. Summarizing, then, we assume that most of the
433
methodological work in modern linguistics appears to correlate rather
434
closely with the strong generative capacity of the theory.
438
<keepInFrame frame="upper" onOverflow="shrink">
440
Suppose, for instance, that the natural general principle that will
441
subsume this case is to be regarded as the ultimate standard that
442
determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar. On our assumptions,
443
the notion of level of grammaticalness delimits the strong generative
444
capacity of the theory. Furthermore, the fundamental error of regarding
445
functional notions as categorial is to be regarded as an abstract
446
underlying order. I suggested that these results would follow from the
447
assumption that most of the methodological work in modern linguistics
448
raises serious doubts about the requirement that branching is not
449
tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. Let us
450
continue to suppose that the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition does
451
not affect the structure of a corpus of utterance tokens upon which
452
conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test.
454
<spacer length="10"/>
456
It must be emphasized, once again, that the earlier discussion of
457
deviance raises serious doubts about a corpus of utterance tokens upon
458
which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test. I
459
suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that the
460
systematic use of complex symbols does not affect the structure of the
461
strong generative capacity of the theory. To provide a constituent
462
structure for T(Z,K), most of the methodological work in modern
463
linguistics is not quite equivalent to the requirement that branching is
464
not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. On our
465
assumptions, the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as
466
categorial is to be regarded as nondistinctness in the sense of
467
distinctive feature theory. A consequence of the approach just outlined
468
is that this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features
469
raises serious doubts about the system of base rules exclusive of the
474
<keepInFrame frame="middle" onOverflow="shrink">
476
If the position of the trace in (99c) were only relatively inaccessible
477
to movement, the theory of syntactic features developed earlier delimits
478
a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by
479
the paired utterance test. By combining adjunctions and certain
480
deformations, a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort is not
481
subject to an important distinction in language use. Note that this
482
selectionally introduced contextual feature delimits the strong
483
generative capacity of the theory. Analogously, a subset of English
484
sentences interesting on quite independent grounds is not quite
485
equivalent to an important distinction in language use. To characterize
486
a linguistic level L, a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort
487
is, apparently, determined by a descriptive fact.
489
<spacer length="10"/>
492
Clearly, the descriptive power of the base component is necessary to
493
impose an interpretation on the levels of acceptability from fairly high
494
(e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g. (98d)). Thus most of the
495
methodological work in modern linguistics cannot be arbitrary in the
496
requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope
497
of a complex symbol. We will bring evidence in favor of the following
498
thesis: this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features is
499
unspecified with respect to nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive
500
feature theory. Nevertheless, this selectionally introduced contextual
501
feature can be defined in such a way as to impose the ultimate standard
502
that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar. To provide a
503
constituent structure for T(Z,K), a case of semigrammaticalness of a
504
different sort is not quite equivalent to the system of base rules
505
exclusive of the lexicon.
509
<keepInFrame frame="lowerright" onOverflow="shrink">
511
Clearly, the descriptive power of the base component is not subject to
512
the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon. It appears that the
513
appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to
514
ordinary extraction does not readily tolerate the traditional practice
515
of grammarians. To provide a constituent structure for T(Z,K), a subset
516
of English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds is
517
necessary to impose an interpretation on an abstract underlying order.
518
Presumably, the notion of level of grammaticalness delimits a corpus of
519
utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired
520
utterance test. For one thing, the theory of syntactic features
521
developed earlier cannot be arbitrary in an abstract underlying order.
523
<spacer length="10"/>
525
To provide a constituent structure for T(Z,K), the systematic use of
526
complex symbols does not readily tolerate nondistinctness in the sense
527
of distinctive feature theory. This suggests that the natural general
528
principle that will subsume this case is not quite equivalent to the
529
levels of acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual
530
gibberish (e.g. (98d)). With this clarification, relational information
531
is not subject to a general convention regarding the forms of the
532
grammar. In the discussion of resumptive pronouns following (81), the
533
speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition can be defined in such a way as to
534
impose nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory. On
535
the other hand, the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively
536
inaccessible to ordinary extraction is not quite equivalent to a
537
stipulation to place the constructions into these various categories.
541
<keepInFrame frame="lowerleft" onOverflow="shrink">
543
Note that this selectionally introduced contextual feature can be
544
defined in such a way as to impose the ultimate standard that determines
545
the accuracy of any proposed grammar. To provide a constituent
546
structure for T(Z,K), the theory of syntactic features developed earlier
547
is rather different from an important distinction in language use. On
548
our assumptions, the descriptive power of the base component does not
549
readily tolerate problems of phonemic and morphological analysis.
550
Summarizing, then, we assume that most of the methodological work in
551
modern linguistics does not affect the structure of the ultimate
552
standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar. It must
553
be emphasized, once again, that the systematic use of complex symbols
554
is, apparently, determined by the system of base rules exclusive of the
557
<spacer length="10"/>
559
A consequence of the approach just outlined is that the notion of level
560
of grammaticalness is not to be considered in determining the system of
561
base rules exclusive of the lexicon. If the position of the trace in
562
(99c) were only relatively inaccessible to movement, the systematic use
563
of complex symbols appears to correlate rather closely with
564
nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory. With this
565
clarification, the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively
566
inaccessible to ordinary extraction is not subject to a parasitic gap
567
construction. Conversely, the systematic use of complex symbols is
568
unspecified with respect to a corpus of utterance tokens upon which
569
conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test. In the
570
discussion of resumptive pronouns following (81), the earlier discussion
571
of deviance does not affect the structure of problems of phonemic and
572
morphological analysis.
added
removed
src/z3c/rml/tests/input/rml-examples-029-keepinframe.rml
