RML Example 26: ptoRML Example 26: ptoRML Example 26: ptoRML (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.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.Please turn overContinued from previous pageFirst Try at a PTO
pto_body=""
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.
Please turn overContinued from previous pagePTO with a table inside
alignment
align
alignment
bulletColor
bulletcolor
bcolor
bulletFontName
bfont
bulletfontname
bulletFontSize
bfontsize
bulletfontsize
bulletIndent
bindent
bulletindent
firstLineIndent
findent
firstlineindent
fontName
face
fontname
font
fontSize
size
fontsize
leading
leading
leftIndent
leftindent
lindent
rightIndent
rightindent
rindent
spaceAfter
spaceafter
spacea
spaceBefore
spacebefore
spaceb
textColor
fg
textcolor
color
Please turn overContinued from previous pageA long PTO
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.
Please turn overContinued from previous page2 PTO (inner split)
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.
Please turn over(inner)Continued from previous page(inner)Inner Starts
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.
Inner Ends
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.
Just another frameThis should not be seenThis PTO does nothing
Many vast star fields in the plane of our Milky Way Galaxy
are rich in clouds of dust, and gas. First and foremost,
visible in the above picture are millions of stars, many
of which are similar to our Sun. Next huge filaments of
dark interstellar dust run across the image and block the
light from millions of more stars yet further across our Galaxy.
Table Slice Continuation
THere is a common need to continue tables intelligently with a continuation trailer
and header which visually match the table. This can be done by implementing
the continuation header and trailer as separate table-lets. However, you will
have to manually set their widths as there is no way for them to pick up
the width of the table they occur in. See below...
-
to be continued
-
-
Continued from previous page
-
Date
Comment
Debit
Credit
Total
21/9/04
Parking
1.00
100.00
21/9/04
Parking
1.00
99.00
21/9/04
Parking
1.00
98.00
21/9/04
Parking
1.00
97.00
21/9/04
Parking
1.00
96.00
21/9/04
Parking
1.00
95.00
21/9/04
Parking
1.00
94.00
21/9/04
Parking
1.00
93.00
21/9/04
Parking
1.00
92.00
21/9/04
Parking
1.00
91.00
21/9/04
Parking
1.00
90.00
21/9/04
Parking
1.00
89.00
21/9/04
Parking
1.00
88.00
21/9/04
Parking
1.00
87.00
21/9/04
Parking
1.00
86.00
21/9/04
Parking
1.00
85.00
21/9/04
Parking
1.00
84.00
21/9/04
Parking
1.00
83.00
21/9/04
Parking
1.00
82.00
21/9/04
Parking
1.00
81.00
21/9/04
Parking
1.00
80.00
Final Balance
80.00
At present RML has no understanding of table content, so there's no easy way
to do running or interim totals. We'd probably need smarter tables which knew
that columns were numeric, and a formula language or variable namespace. Not hard,
but needs some thought to do it right!
Example 1-- these orders continue on following page ---- these orders continued from preceding page --1. Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask at 6 l/min, Titrate O2 to keep O2Sat
>95% and pO2 >70mmHg, Continuous O2Sat monitor, Decrease O2 to room air, ABG Now and In 20min
. make sure he's breathing every morning
2. Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask at 6 l/min, Titrate O2 to keep O2Sat
>95% and pO2 >70mmHg, Continuous O2Sat monitor, Decrease O2 to room air, ABG Now and In 20min
. make sure he's breathing every morning
3. Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask at 6 l/min, Titrate O2 to keep O2Sat
>95% and pO2 >70mmHg, Continuous O2Sat monitor, Decrease O2 to room air, ABG Now and In 20min
. make sure he's breathing every morning
4. Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask at 6 l/min, Titrate O2 to keep O2Sat
>95% and pO2 >70mmHg, Continuous O2Sat monitor, Decrease O2 to room air, ABG Now and In 20min
. make sure he's breathing every morning
5. Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
6. Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
7. Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
8. Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
9. Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
10.Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
11.Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
12.Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
13.Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
14.Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
15.Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
16.Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
17.Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
18.Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
19.Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
20.Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
21.Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
Example 2-- these orders continue on following page ---- these orders continued from preceding page --1. Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask at 6 l/min, Titrate O2 to keep O2Sat
>95% and pO2 >70mmHg, Continuous O2Sat monitor, Decrease O2 to room air, ABG Now and In 20min
. make sure he's breathing every morning
2. Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask at 6 l/min, Titrate O2 to keep O2Sat
>95% and pO2 >70mmHg, Continuous O2Sat monitor, Decrease O2 to room air, ABG Now and In 20min
. make sure he's breathing every morning
3. Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask at 6 l/min, Titrate O2 to keep O2Sat
>95% and pO2 >70mmHg, Continuous O2Sat monitor, Decrease O2 to room air, ABG Now and In 20min
. make sure he's breathing every morning
4. Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask at 6 l/min, Titrate O2 to keep O2Sat
>95% and pO2 >70mmHg, Continuous O2Sat monitor, Decrease O2 to room air, ABG Now and In 20min
. make sure he's breathing every morning
5. Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask at 6 l/min, Titrate O2 to keep O2Sat
>95% and pO2 >70mmHg, Continuous O2Sat monitor, Decrease O2 to room air, ABG Now and In 20min
. make sure he's breathing every morning
6. Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask at 6 l/min, Titrate O2 to keep O2Sat
>95% and pO2 >70mmHg, Continuous O2Sat monitor, Decrease O2 to room air, ABG Now and In 20min
. make sure he's breathing every morning
7. Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask at 6 l/min, Titrate O2 to keep O2Sat
>95% and pO2 >70mmHg, Continuous O2Sat monitor, Decrease O2 to room air, ABG Now and In 20min
. make sure he's breathing every morning
8. Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
9. Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
10.Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
11.Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
12.Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
13.Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
14.Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
15.Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
16.Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
17.Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
18.Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
19.Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
20.Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
21.Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
Example 3-- these orders continue on following page ---- these orders continued from preceding page --1. Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
2. Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
3. Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
4. Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
5. Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
6. Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
7. Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
8. Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
9. Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
10.Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
11.Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
12.Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
13.Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
14.Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
15.Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
16.Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
17.Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
18.Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
19.Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
20.Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
21.Humidified O2 by Partial Rebreathing Mask
continuation headerPTO block without trailer tag
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.
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.
continuation headerPTO block with empty trailer tag
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.
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.
continuation footerPTO block without header tag
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.
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.
continuation footerPTO block with empty header tag
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.
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.