<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" standalone="no" ?> 
<!DOCTYPE document SYSTEM "rml_1_0.dtd"> 
<document filename="test_003_frames.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 7: Frames</drawString>
            <setFont name="Helvetica-Oblique" size="12" />
    		<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" />
		<setFont name="Helvetica-BoldOblique" size="18"/>
		
		<setFont name="Helvetica" size="10"/>
	</pageGraphics>
	<frame id="first" x1="1in" y1="4.845in" width="3in" height="3.645in"/>
	<frame id="second" x1="4.27in" y1="4.845in" width="3in" height="3.645in"/>
	<frame id="third" x1="1in" y1="1in" width="3in" height="3.645in"/>
	<frame id="fourth" x1="4.27in" y1="1in" width="3in" height="3.645in"/>
	</pageTemplate>
</template>

<stylesheet>
	<initialize>
	<alias id="style.normal" value="style.Normal"/>
	</initialize>

	<paraStyle
	name="h1"
	fontName="Helvetica-BoldOblique"
	fontSize="10"
	leading="36"
	/>
	
	<paraStyle
	name="normal"
	fontName="Helvetica"
	fontSize="8"
	leading="12"
	/>

	<paraStyle
	name="space below"
	fontName="Helvetica"
	fontSize="8"
	leading="12"
	spaceAfter="10"
	/>

	<paraStyle name="bugReport"
	parent="h1"
	spaceBefore = "0"
	textColor = "red"
	/>
	<paraStyle name="intro"  fontName="Helvetica" fontSize="12" leading="12" spaceAfter="12"/>
		
</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">This is frame 1</para>
<para style="space below"><b>This page tests to see that multiple frames display on one page. It also checks to see that the "nextFrame" tag works correctly to split the text in the story correctly between those frames.</b></para>
<para style="normal">This is the text for frame 1. This is the text for frame one.
This is the text for frame 1. This is the text for frame one.
This is the text for frame 1. This is the text for frame one. This is the text for frame one.
This is the text for frame 1. This is the text for frame one. This is the text for frame one.. This is the text for frame one. This is the text for frame one.
This is the text for frame 1. This is the text for frame one.
This is the text for frame 1. This is the text for frame one. This is the text for frame one.
This is the text for frame 1. This is the text for frame one. This is the text for frame one. This is the text for frame one. This is the text for frame one.
This is the text for frame 1. This is the text for frame one.
This is the text for frame 1. This is the text for frame one. This is the text for frame one.
</para>
<nextFrame/>

<para style="h1">This is frame 2</para>
<para style="space below"><b>This page tests to see that multiple frames display on one page. It also checks to see that the "nextFrame" tag works correctly to split the text in the story correctly between those frames.</b></para>
<para style="normal">This is the text for frame 2. This is the text for frame two.
This is the text for frame 2. This is the text for frame two.
This is the text for frame 2. This is the text for frame two. This is the text for frame two.
This is the text for frame 2. This is the text for frame two. This is the text for frame two. This is the text for frame two. This is the text for frame two.
This is the text for frame 2. This is the text for frame two.
This is the text for frame 2. This is the text for frame two. This is the text for frame two.
This is the text for frame 2. This is the text for frame two. This is the text for frame two. This is the text for frame two. This is the text for frame two.
This is the text for frame 2. This is the text for frame two.
This is the text for frame 2. This is the text for frame two. This is the text for frame two.
</para>
<nextFrame/>

<para style="h1">This is frame 3</para>
<para style="space below"><b>This page tests to see that multiple frames display on one page. It also checks to see that the "nextFrame" tag works correctly to split the text in the story correctly between those frames.</b></para>
<para style="normal">This is the text for frame 3. This is the text for frame three.
This is the text for frame 3. This is the text for frame three.
This is the text for frame 3. This is the text for frame three. This is the text for frame three.
This is the text for frame 3. This is the text for frame three. This is the text for frame three. This is the text for frame three. This is the text for frame three.
This is the text for frame 3. This is the text for frame three.
This is the text for frame 3. This is the text for frame three. This is the text for frame three.
This is the text for frame 3. This is the text for frame three. This is the text for frame three. This is the text for frame three. This is the text for frame three.
This is the text for frame 3. This is the text for frame three.
This is the text for frame 3. This is the text for frame three. This is the text for frame three.
</para>
<nextFrame/>

<para style="h1">This is frame 4</para>
<para style="space below"><b>This page tests to see that multiple frames display on one page. It also checks to see that the "nextFrame" tag works correctly to split the text in the story correctly between those frames.</b></para>
<para style="normal">This is the text for frame 4. This is the text for frame four.
This is the text for frame 4. This is the text for frame four.
This is the text for frame 4. This is the text for frame four. This is the text for frame four.
This is the text for frame 4. This is the text for frame four. This is the text for frame four. This is the text for frame four. This is the text for frame four.
This is the text for frame 4. This is the text for frame four.
This is the text for frame 4. This is the text for frame four. This is the text for frame four.
This is the text for frame 4. This is the text for frame four. This is the text for frame four. This is the text for frame four. This is the text for frame four.
This is the text for frame 4. This is the text for frame four.
This is the text for frame 4. This is the text for frame four. This is the text for frame four.
</para>
<nextPage/>
<para style="h1">Starting in frame 1</para>
<para style="space below"><b>This page tests to see that we flow from one frame to the next correctly.</b></para>
<para style="normal">
Clearly, the natural general principle that will subsume this case is
not subject to a parasitic gap construction.  Presumably, most of the
methodological work in modern linguistics can be defined in such a way
as to impose the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon.  In the
discussion of resumptive pronouns following (81), the fundamental error
of regarding functional notions as categorial is to be regarded as a
descriptive <span color="red">fact</span>.<br/>So far, the earlier discussion of deviance is not
quite equivalent to a parasitic gap construction.  To characterize a
linguistic level L, a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort
may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate irrelevant intervening
contexts in selectional <span color="red">rules</span>.<br/>
Summarizing, then, we assume that the descriptive power of the base
component can be defined in such a way as to impose nondistinctness in
the sense of distinctive feature theory.  A lot of sophistication has
been developed about the utilization of machines for complex purposes,
the notion of level of grammaticalness delimits an abstract underlying
<span color="red">order</span>.<br/>To provide a constituent structure for T(Z,K), a subset of
English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds appears to
correlate rather closely with problems of phonemic and morphological
analysis.  For one thing, this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets
of features is rather different from a general convention regarding the
forms of the grammar.  A lot of sophistication has been developed about
the utilization of machines for complex purposes, a case of
semigrammaticalness of a different sort is not to be considered in
determining an important distinction in language <span color="red">use</span>.<br/>
We will bring evidence in favor of the following thesis:  a subset of
English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds delimits a
descriptive <span color="red">fact</span>.<br/>To characterize a linguistic level L, the notion of
level of grammaticalness is not to be considered in determining a
parasitic gap construction.  It must be emphasized, once again, that the
speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition can be defined in such a way as to
impose a stipulation to place the constructions into these various
categories.  On our assumptions, the appearance of parasitic gaps in
domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction raises serious
doubts about problems of phonemic and morphological analysis.  For one
thing, the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as
categorial is not quite equivalent to a stipulation to place the
constructions into these various <span color="red">categories</span>.<br/>
Thus the descriptive power of the base component is unspecified with
respect to the strong generative capacity of the theory.  Presumably,
the theory of syntactic features developed earlier appears to correlate
rather closely with a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity
has been defined by the paired utterance test.  To provide a constituent
structure for T(Z,K), a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort
is not to be considered in determining the ultimate standard that
determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar.  For any transformation
which is sufficiently diversified in application to be of any interest,
a subset of English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds
raises serious doubts about 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:  an important property of
these three types of EC is not to be considered in determining the
system of base rules exclusive of the <span color="red">lexicon</span>.<br/>
With this clarification, the descriptive power of the base component is
not subject to the requirement that branching is not tolerated within
the dominance scope of a complex <span color="red">symbol</span>.<br/>In the discussion of
resumptive pronouns following (81), this selectionally introduced
contextual feature does not readily tolerate a parasitic gap
construction.  Another superficial similarity is the interest in
simulation of behavior, a descriptively adequate grammar does not affect
the structure of a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has
been defined by the paired utterance <span color="red">test</span>.<br/>From C1, it follows that the
speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition is not to be considered in
determining the traditional practice of grammarians.  Let us continue to
suppose that the notion of level of grammaticalness is necessary to
impose an interpretation on the system of base rules exclusive of the
<span color="red">lexicon</span>.<br/>
</para>
</story>

</document>
