<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" standalone="no" ?>
<!DOCTYPE document SYSTEM "rml_1_0.dtd">
<document filename="test_029_keepinframe.pdf" debug="0" invariant="0" compression="1">


<template pageSize="(595, 842)" leftMargin="72" showBoundary="1">
<pageTemplate id="main">
	<pageGraphics>
		<setFont name="Helvetica-Bold" size="18"/>
		    <drawString x="35" y="783">RML Example 30: Keepinframe</drawString>
			<image file="logo_no_bar.png" preserveAspectRatio="1" x="488" y="749" width="72" height="72"/>
    		<image file="strapline.png" preserveAspectRatio="1" x="35" y="0" width="525" />
	</pageGraphics>
	<frame id="F1" x1="2.5cm" y1="13.5cm" width="170" height="260"/>
	<frame id="F2" x1="11.5cm" y1="13.5cm" width="170" height="260"/>
	<frame id="F3" x1="2.5cm" y1="2.5cm" width="170" height="260"/>
	<frame id="F4" x1="11.5cm" y1="2.5cm" width="170" height="260"/>
	</pageTemplate>

	<pageTemplate id="main2">
	<pageGraphics>
		<setFont name="Helvetica-Bold" size="18"/>
		    <drawString x="35" y="783">RML Example 30: Keepinframe</drawString>
			<image file="logo_no_bar.png" preserveAspectRatio="1" x="488" y="749" width="72" height="72"/>
    		<image file="strapline.png" preserveAspectRatio="1" x="35" y="0" width="525" />
	</pageGraphics>
	<frame id="F1" x1="2.5cm" y1="15.5cm" width="170" height="260"/>
	<frame id="F2" x1="11.5cm" y1="15.5cm" width="170" height="260"/>
	<frame id="F3" x1="2.5cm" y1="8.5cm" width="170" height="260"/>
	<frame id="F4" x1="11.5cm" y1="8.5cm" width="170" height="260"/>
	</pageTemplate>

	<pageTemplate id="newsletter">
	<pageGraphics>
		<setFont name="Helvetica-Bold" size="18"/>
		    <drawString x="35" y="783">RML Example 30: Keepinframe</drawString>
			<image file="logo_no_bar.png" preserveAspectRatio="1" x="488" y="749" width="72" height="72"/>
    		<image file="strapline.png" preserveAspectRatio="1" x="35" y="0" width="525" />
	</pageGraphics>
	<frame id="top" x1="10%" y1="80%" width="80%" height="10%"/>
	<frame id="upper" x1="10%" y1="60%" width="55%" height="15%"/>
	<frame id="middle" x1="10%" y1="35%" width="55%" height="20%"/>
	<frame id="lowerleft" x1="10%" y1="10%" width="25%" height="20%"/>
	<frame id="lowerright" x1="40%" y1="10%" width="25%" height="20%"/>
	<frame id="sidebar" x1="70%" y1="10%" width="20%" height="65%"/>
	</pageTemplate>


</template>

<stylesheet>
	<initialize>
		<alias id="bt" value="style.BodyText"/>
	</initialize>
	<paraStyle
		name="h1"
		parent="style.Normal"
		fontName="Times-Bold"
		fontSize="18"
		leading="22"
		spaceAfter="6"
		pageBreakBefore="0"
		keepWithNext="0"
		/>

	<paraStyle
		name="h2"
		parent="style.Normal"
		fontName="Times-Bold"
		fontSize="16"
		leading="18"
		spaceAfter="3"
		pageBreakBefore="0"
		keepWithNext="0"
		/>

	<paraStyle
		name="keepInFrame"
		parent="bt"
		fontSize="9"
		alignment="right"
		/>
		<paraStyle name="intro"  fontName="Helvetica" fontSize="12" leading="12" spaceAfter="12"/>

	<!--this style used for a tablerow example later on in document-->
		<blockTableStyle id="simple">
			<blockValign start="0,0" stop="-1,-1" value="TOP"/>
			<blockFont name="Helvetica" size="6" leading="7"/>
			<blockBottomPadding length="1"/>
			<blockTopPadding length="1"/>
			<lineStyle kind="INNERGRID" colorName="gray" start="0,0" stop="-1,-1" thickness="0.25"/>
			<lineStyle kind="BOX" colorName="black" start="0,0" stop="-1,-1" thickness="0.25"/>
		</blockTableStyle>

		<blockTableStyle id="summary" parent="simple">
			<blockBackground colorName="cyan"/>
			<blockFont name="Helvetica-Bold" size="6" leading="7"/>
		</blockTableStyle>

		<blockTableStyle id="continuation" parent="simple">
			<blockBackground colorName="silver"/>
			<blockFont name="Helvetica-Oblique" size="6" leading="7"/>
		</blockTableStyle>

</stylesheet>


<story>
<storyPlace x="35" y="660" width="525" height="73" origin="page">
<para style="intro">RML (Report Markup Language) is ReportLab's own language for specifying the appearance of a printed page, which is converted into PDF by the utility rml2pdf.</para>
<hr color="white" thickness="8pt"/>
<para style="intro">These RML samples showcase techniques and features for generating various types of ouput and are distributed within our commercial package as test cases. Each should be self explanatory and stand alone.</para>
<illustration height="3" width="525" align="center">
<fill color= "(0,0.99,0.97,0.0)" />
<rect x="0" y = "-12" width="525" height="3" round="1" fill="1" stroke = "Yes" />
</illustration>
</storyPlace>
<setNextTemplate name="main2"/>
	<keepInFrame onOverflow = "shrink" id="ff1">
		<para style="h1">First Try at a keepInFrame</para>
		<para style="bt">
			This will behave just like part of a story, as long as it all
			fits.
		</para>
		<para style="bt">
			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. <font color="red">Notice</font>, 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.
		</para>
	</keepInFrame>
	<nextFrame/>
	<keepInFrame onOverflow = "shrink" id="ff2">
		<para style="h1">keepInFrame with a table inside</para>
		<blockTable>
			<blockTableStyle id="tablestyle_000">
				<blockValign start="0,0" stop="-1,-1" value="TOP"/>
				<lineStyle kind="INNERGRID" colorName="black" start="0,0" stop="-1,-1" thickness="0.25"/>
				<lineStyle kind="BOX" colorName="black" start="0,0" stop="-1,-1" thickness="0.25"/>
			</blockTableStyle>
			<tr><td>alignment</td><td>align
alignment</td></tr>
			<tr><td>bulletColor</td><td>bulletcolor
bcolor</td></tr>
			<tr><td>bulletFontName</td><td>bfont
bulletfontname</td></tr>
			<tr><td>bulletFontSize</td><td>bfontsize
bulletfontsize</td></tr>
			<tr><td>bulletIndent</td><td>bindent
bulletindent</td></tr>
			<tr><td>firstLineIndent</td><td>findent
firstlineindent</td></tr>
			<tr><td>fontName</td><td>face
fontname
font</td></tr>
			<tr><td>fontSize</td><td>size
fontsize</td></tr>
			<tr><td>leading</td><td>leading</td></tr>
			<tr><td>leftIndent</td><td>leftindent
lindent</td></tr>
			<tr><td>rightIndent</td><td>rightindent
rindent</td></tr>
			<tr><td>spaceAfter</td><td>spaceafter
spacea</td></tr>
			<tr><td>spaceBefore</td><td>spacebefore
spaceb</td></tr>
			<tr><td>textColor</td><td>fg
textcolor
color</td></tr>
		</blockTable>
	</keepInFrame>
	<nextFrame/>
	<keepInFrame onOverflow = "shrink" id="ff3">
		<para style="h1">A long keepInFrame, shrinks</para>
		<para style="bt">
			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.
			On our assumptions, a descriptively adequate grammar delimits the strong
			generative capacity of the theory.	For one thing, the fundamental error
			of regarding functional notions as categorial is to be regarded as a
			corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the
			paired utterance test.	A majority	of informed linguistic specialists
			agree that the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively
			inaccessible to ordinary extraction is necessary to impose an
			interpretation on the requirement that branching is not tolerated within
			the dominance scope of a complex symbol.  It may be, then, that the
			speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition appears to correlate rather
			closely with the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any
			proposed grammar.  Analogously, the notion of level of grammaticalness
			may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate a general convention
			regarding the forms of the grammar.
		</para>
	</keepInFrame>
	<nextFrame/>
	<keepInFrame onOverflow = "shrink" id="ff4">
		<para style="h1">2 keepInFrame (inner split)</para>
		<para style="bt" textColor="pink">
			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.
		</para>
		<keepInFrame maxHeight="100" onOverflow = "shrink" id="ff5">
			<para style="h1">Inner Starts</para>
			<para style="bt" textColor="yellow">
				On our assumptions, a descriptively adequate grammar delimits the strong
				generative capacity of the theory.	For one thing, the fundamental error
				of regarding functional notions as categorial is to be regarded as a
				corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the
				paired utterance test.	A majority	of informed linguistic specialists
				agree that the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively
				inaccessible to ordinary extraction is necessary to impose an
				interpretation on the requirement that branching is not tolerated within
				the dominance scope of a complex symbol.  It may be, then, that the
				speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition appears to correlate rather
				closely with the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any
				proposed grammar.  Analogously, the notion of level of grammaticalness
				may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate a general convention
				regarding the forms of the grammar.
			</para>
			<para style="h1">Inner Ends</para>
		</keepInFrame>
		<para style="bt" textColor="magenta">
			We have already seen that the natural general principle that will
			subsume this case cannot be arbitrary in the requirement that branching
			is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol.
			Notice, incidentally, that the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition is
			to be regarded as the strong generative capacity of the theory.  A
			consequence of the approach just outlined is that the descriptive power
			of the base component does not affect the structure of the levels of
			acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g.
			(98d)).  By combining adjunctions and certain deformations, a
			descriptively adequate grammar cannot be arbitrary in the strong
			generative capacity of the theory.
		</para>
	</keepInFrame>
	<nextPage/>
	<nextFrame name="F4"/>
	<keepInFrame onOverflow = "overflow" id="ff6">
		<para style="h1">onOverflow = "overflow" in Frame F4</para>
		<para style="bt">
			This will behave just like part of a story, as long as it all
			fits.
		</para>
		<para style="bt">
			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. <font color="red">Notice</font>, 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.
		</para>
	</keepInFrame>
	<keepInFrame onOverflow = "truncate" id="ff7" frame="F1">
		<para style="h1">onOverflow = "truncate" in frame F1</para>
		<para style="bt">
			This will behave just like part of a story, as long as it all
			fits.
		</para>
		<para style="bt">
			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. <font color="red">Notice</font>, 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.
		</para>
	</keepInFrame>

	<setNextTemplate name="newsletter"/>
	<nextPage/>

	<!-- from now on we can explore a totally different style of coding -
	story says explicitly what goes where-->
	<para style="h2">
		A new way to lay things out....
	</para>
	<para>
		This tag lets us handle layouts like newsletters and factsheets in a much more
		natural style.  In documents like this, one does not want stuff to leak out of the
		intended box into the next one.  You wrap your content in &lt;keepInFrame&gt; tags
		and explicitly tell it where to go.  The order of this page naturally goes top, upper, middle,
		bottomleft, bottomright, sidebar.
	</para>

	<keepInFrame frame="sidebar" onOverflow="error">
		<para>
			I drew this stuff second, out of the natural order, putting it within a tag saying
			&lt;keepInFrame frame="sidebar" overflow="error"&gt;.
		</para>
		<para>
			Havng done this, if I had too much content, there would an error warning me.  I can put
			an ID in to identify it if I want.  I can also specify other behaviours for full frames - shrink, truncate,
			overflow.
		</para>
	</keepInFrame>

	<keepInFrame frame="upper" onOverflow="error">
		<para>
			I drew this stuff third, out of the natural order.  This should be in the upper frame, below the top.
		</para>
	</keepInFrame>

	<keepInFrame frame="middle" onOverflow="error">
		<para>
			this goes in the middle frame.
		</para>
	</keepInFrame>

	<keepInFrame frame="lowerright" onOverflow="error">
		<para>
			this goes in the bottom right, and was drawn before the stuff on the left..
		</para>
	</keepInFrame>

	<keepInFrame frame="lowerleft" onOverflow="error">
		<para>
			and finally the bottom left.
		</para>
	</keepInFrame>

	<nextPage/>
	<para style="h2">
		The Nonsense Journal
	</para>
	<para>
		We now overfill with rubbish etc etc and use onOverflow="shrink"
	</para>

	<keepInFrame frame="sidebar" onOverflow="shrink">
		<para>
			I drew this stuff second, out of the natural order, putting it within a tag saying
			&lt;keepInFrame frame="sidebar" overflow="shrink"&gt;.
		</para>
		<para>
Of course, this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features
can be defined in such a way as to impose an important distinction in
language use.  Nevertheless, the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition
may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate the levels of acceptability
from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g. (98d)).  By
combining adjunctions and certain deformations, the notion of level of
grammaticalness is rather different from a descriptive fact.  I
suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that the
speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition is to be regarded as the levels of
acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g.
(98d)).  A consequence of the approach just outlined is that this
selectionally introduced contextual feature is not to be considered in
determining irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules.
		</para>
		<spacer length="10"/>
		<para>
So far, the systematic use of complex symbols is necessary to impose an
interpretation on nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature
theory.  It must be emphasized, once again, that most of the
methodological work in modern linguistics is rather different from the
requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope
of a complex symbol.  Conversely, a descriptively adequate grammar can
be defined in such a way as to impose a stipulation to place the
constructions into these various categories.  If the position of the
trace in (99c) were only relatively inaccessible to movement, relational
information does not affect the structure of the traditional practice of
grammarians.  Summarizing, then, we assume that most of the
methodological work in modern linguistics appears to correlate rather
closely with the strong generative capacity of the theory.
		</para>
	</keepInFrame>

	<keepInFrame frame="upper" onOverflow="shrink">
		<para>
Suppose, for instance, that the natural general principle that will
subsume this case is to be regarded as the ultimate standard that
determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar.  On our assumptions,
the notion of level of grammaticalness delimits the strong generative
capacity of the theory.  Furthermore, the fundamental error of regarding
functional notions as categorial is to be regarded as an abstract
underlying order.  I suggested that these results would follow from the
assumption that most of the methodological work in modern linguistics
raises serious doubts about the requirement that branching is not
tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol.  Let us
continue to suppose that the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition does
not affect the structure of a corpus of utterance tokens upon which
conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test.
		</para>
		<spacer length="10"/>
		<para>
It must be emphasized, once again, that the earlier discussion of
deviance raises serious doubts about a corpus of utterance tokens upon
which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test.  I
suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that the
systematic use of complex symbols does not affect the structure of the
strong generative capacity of the theory.  To provide a constituent
structure for T(Z,K), most of the methodological work in modern
linguistics is not quite equivalent to the requirement that branching is
not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol.  On our
assumptions, the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as
categorial is to be regarded as nondistinctness in the sense of
distinctive feature theory.  A consequence of the approach just outlined
is that this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features
raises serious doubts about the system of base rules exclusive of the
lexicon.
		</para>
	</keepInFrame>

	<keepInFrame frame="middle" onOverflow="shrink">
		<para>
If the position of the trace in (99c) were only relatively inaccessible
to movement, the theory of syntactic features developed earlier delimits
a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by
the paired utterance test.  By combining adjunctions and certain
deformations, a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort is not
subject to an important distinction in language use.  Note that this
selectionally introduced contextual feature delimits the strong
generative capacity of the theory.  Analogously, a subset of English
sentences interesting on quite independent grounds is not quite
equivalent to an important distinction in language use.  To characterize
a linguistic level L, a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort
is, apparently, determined by a descriptive fact.
		</para>
		<spacer length="10"/>

		<para>
Clearly, the descriptive power of the base component is necessary to
impose an interpretation on the levels of acceptability from fairly high
(e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g. (98d)).  Thus most of the
methodological work in modern linguistics cannot be arbitrary in the
requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope
of a complex symbol.  We will bring evidence in favor of the following
thesis:  this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features is
unspecified with respect to nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive
feature theory.  Nevertheless, this selectionally introduced contextual
feature can be defined in such a way as to impose the ultimate standard
that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar.  To provide a
constituent structure for T(Z,K), a case of semigrammaticalness of a
different sort is not quite equivalent to the system of base rules
exclusive of the lexicon.
	</para>
	</keepInFrame>

	<keepInFrame frame="lowerright" onOverflow="shrink">
		<para>
Clearly, the descriptive power of the base component is not subject to
the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon.  It appears that the
appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to
ordinary extraction does not readily tolerate the traditional practice
of grammarians.  To provide a constituent structure for T(Z,K), a subset
of English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds is
necessary to impose an interpretation on an abstract underlying order.
Presumably, the notion of level of grammaticalness delimits a corpus of
utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired
utterance test.  For one thing, the theory of syntactic features
developed earlier cannot be arbitrary in an abstract underlying order.
		</para>
		<spacer length="10"/>
		<para>
To provide a constituent structure for T(Z,K), the systematic use of
complex symbols does not readily tolerate nondistinctness in the sense
of distinctive feature theory.  This suggests that the natural general
principle that will subsume this case is not quite equivalent to the
levels of acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual
gibberish (e.g. (98d)).  With this clarification, relational information
is not subject to a general convention regarding the forms of the
grammar.  In the discussion of resumptive pronouns following (81), the
speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition can be defined in such a way as to
impose nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory.  On
the other hand, the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively
inaccessible to ordinary extraction is not quite equivalent to a
stipulation to place the constructions into these various categories.
		</para>
	</keepInFrame>

	<keepInFrame frame="lowerleft" onOverflow="shrink">
		<para>
Note that this selectionally introduced contextual feature can be
defined in such a way as to impose the ultimate standard that determines
the accuracy of any proposed grammar.  To provide a constituent
structure for T(Z,K), the theory of syntactic features developed earlier
is rather different from an important distinction in language use.  On
our assumptions, the descriptive power of the base component does not
readily tolerate problems of phonemic and morphological analysis.
Summarizing, then, we assume that most of the methodological work in
modern linguistics does not affect the structure of the ultimate
standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar.  It must
be emphasized, once again, that the systematic use of complex symbols
is, apparently, determined by the system of base rules exclusive of the
lexicon.
		</para>
		<spacer length="10"/>
		<para>
A consequence of the approach just outlined is that the notion of level
of grammaticalness is not to be considered in determining the system of
base rules exclusive of the lexicon.  If the position of the trace in
(99c) were only relatively inaccessible to movement, the systematic use
of complex symbols appears to correlate rather closely with
nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory.  With this
clarification, the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively
inaccessible to ordinary extraction is not subject to a parasitic gap
construction.  Conversely, the systematic use of complex symbols is
unspecified with respect to a corpus of utterance tokens upon which
conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test.  In the
discussion of resumptive pronouns following (81), the earlier discussion
of deviance does not affect the structure of problems of phonemic and
morphological analysis.
		</para>
	</keepInFrame>
</story>

</document>
