<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" standalone="no" ?>
<!DOCTYPE document SYSTEM "rml_1_0.dtd">
<document filename="test_051_balancedcolumns.pdf" debug="0" invariant="default" compression="1">


<template pageSize="(595, 842)" leftMargin="72" showBoundary="0">
<pageTemplate id="main">
	<pageGraphics>
		<setFont name="Helvetica-Bold" size="18"/>
		    <drawString x="35" y="783">RML Example 51: BalancedColumns</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="1" x1="35" y1="45" width="525" height="590" showBoundary="1"/>
	</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>
		<para style="h1">First Try at a balancedColumns</para>
		<para>We intend to have some content that suddenly splits into two columns</para>
		<para style="bt">Heading</para>
		<balancedColumns ncols="2" needed="72" spaceBefore="7" spaceAfter="11"
			leftPadding="none" innerPadding="12" rightPadding="none"
			topPadding="none" bottomPadding="none"
			showBoundary="False">
		<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>
		<para style="h1">A Table</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>
		<para style="h1">A Title</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>
		</balancedColumns>
		<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>
</story>

</document>
