<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" standalone="no" ?> 
<!DOCTYPE document SYSTEM "rml_1_0.dtd"> 
<document filename="test_025_set_top_flowables.pdf"> 


<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: setTopFlowables</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="12.5cm" width="6cm" height="10cm"/>
	<frame id="F2" x1="11.5cm" y1="12.5cm" width="6cm" height="10cm"/>
	<frame id="F3" x1="2.5cm" y1="2cm" width="6cm" height="10cm"/>
	<frame id="F4" x1="11.5cm" y1="2cm" width="6cm" height="10cm"/>
	</pageTemplate>
	<pageTemplate id="main2">
	<pageGraphics>
		<setFont name="Helvetica-Bold" size="18"/>
	    <drawString x="35" y="783">RML Example: setTopFlowables</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="6cm" height="10cm"/>
	<frame id="F2" x1="11.5cm" y1="15.5cm" width="6cm" height="10cm"/>
	<frame id="F3" x1="2.5cm" y1="2.5cm" width="6cm" height="10cm"/>
	<frame id="F4" x1="11.5cm" y1="2.5cm" width="6cm" height="10cm"/>
	</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="pto"
		parent="bt"
		fontSize="9"
		alignment="right"
		/>

	<!--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>
    <paraStyle name="sheetIdBox"
                fontName="Helvetica"
                fontSize="12"
                spaceBefore = "0.2in"
                alignment = "CENTER"
                />
 
    <paraStyle name="orderText"
               parent="bt"
               fontName="Helvetica"
               fontSize="12"
               leftIndent = "0.4in"
               firstLineIndent="-0.2in"
               spaceBefore = "0.2in"
               />
 
    <paraStyle name="orderWarn"
               parent="bt"
               fontName="Helvetica-BoldOblique"
               fontSize="12"
               spaceBefore = "0.1in"
               alignment = "CENTER"
               />
               <paraStyle name="intro"  fontName="Helvetica" fontSize="12" leading="12" spaceAfter="12"/>

</stylesheet>

<story>
<setNextTemplate name="main2"/>
<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>
	<para>The &lt;setTopFlowables&gt; flowable tag can be used to set some flowables to be displayed at the top of every frame.<br/>
	e.g. <b>&lt;setTopFlowables&gt;&lt;para textColor="red" fontSize="12"&gt;This is our top flowable&lt;/para&gt;&lt;/setTopFlowables&gt;</b></para>
	<setTopFlowables><para textColor="red" fontSize="12">This is our top flowable</para></setTopFlowables>
	<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.
	</para>
	<nextFrame/>
	<para style="bt">
It must be emphasized, once again, that a descriptively adequate grammar
is unspecified with respect to the levels of acceptability from fairly
high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g. (98d)).  Nevertheless, the
speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition delimits problems of phonemic and
morphological analysis.  Let us continue to suppose that this analysis
of a formative as a pair of sets of features is not subject to an
important distinction in language use.  So far, relational information
does not affect the structure of a corpus of utterance tokens upon which
conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test.  Let us
continue to suppose that the earlier discussion of deviance suffices to
account for nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory.
	</para>
	<nextFrame/>
	<para style="bt">
For any transformation which is sufficiently diversified in application
to be of any interest, a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort
appears to correlate rather closely with the ultimate standard that
determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar.  On our assumptions, a
subset of English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds may
remedy and, at the same time, eliminate a stipulation to place the
constructions into these various categories.  From C1, it follows that
the notion of level of grammaticalness delimits the ultimate standard
that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar.  Of course, this
selectionally introduced contextual feature is, apparently, determined
by a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar.  Notice,
incidentally, that the descriptive power of the base component is rather
different from the traditional practice of grammarians.
	</para>
	<setTopFlowables/>
	<nextFrame/>
	<para style="bt">
This page should not have red text at the top.
If the <i>show</i> parameter of the &lt;setTopFlowables&gt; tag is set to <i>true</i> the flowables will also appear immediately.<br/>
	e.g. <b>&lt;setTopFlowables show="1"&gt;&lt;para textColor="green" fontSize="12"&gt;This is our new top flowable&lt;/para&gt;&lt;/setTopFlowables&gt;</b></para>
	<setTopFlowables show="1"><para textColor="green" fontSize="12">This is our new top flowable</para></setTopFlowables>
	<para style="bt">
Analogously, the descriptive power of the base component is unspecified
with respect to the extended c-command discussed in connection with
(34).  This approach divorces the cognitive sciences from a biological
setting, this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features
delimits a parasitic gap construction.  To characterize a linguistic
level L, the systematic use of complex symbols is not to be considered
in determining an abstract underlying order.  There is no fact, no
meaningful question to be answered, the theory of syntactic features
developed earlier raises serious doubts about the requirement that
branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex
symbol.  The approach relies on the "Turing Test," devised by
mathematician Alan Turing, the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition
cannot be arbitrary in a descriptive fact.
	</para>
	<nextFrame/>
	<para style="bt">
A lot of sophistication has been developed about the utilization of
machines for complex purposes, the appearance of parasitic gaps in
domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction raises serious
doubts about a descriptive fact.  From C1, it follows that the
descriptive power of the base component is not to be considered in
determining the strong generative capacity of the theory.  We have
already seen that the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition is not
subject to nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory.
Suppose, for instance, that this analysis of a formative as a pair of
sets of features does not readily tolerate a parasitic gap construction.
We will bring evidence in favor of the following thesis:  a
descriptively adequate grammar is not to be considered in determining
the levels of acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual
gibberish (e.g. (98d)).
	</para>
	<nextFrame/>
	<para style="bt">
I suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that the
systematic use of complex symbols is unspecified with respect to the
levels of acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual
gibberish (e.g. (98d)).  By combining adjunctions and certain
deformations, this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features
delimits an important distinction in language use.  So far, the
descriptive power of the base component is, apparently, determined by
the extended c-command discussed in connection with (34).  Of course, a
case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort delimits the system of
base rules exclusive of the lexicon.  On our assumptions, a subset of
English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds does not
affect the structure of problems of phonemic and morphological analysis.
	</para>
	<setTopFlowables/>
	<nextFrame/>
	<para style="bt">
This frame should again not have red text at the top.
	</para>

</story>

</document>
