DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40271>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40271 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 05:58 ------- (In reply to comment #14) <snip /> > What is also important in case of auto-layout, I think, is that the > minimum-column-width should not > simply be 'the available IPD divided by the number of columns' (or 'one > table-unit'). > The big difference with fixed-layout is precisely that, in case of > auto-layout the minimum-column- > width depends on the content. Just thought I'd add: This actually means that for auto-layout, if we encounter a TableColumn whose width is an instance of TableColLength, then this width should be ignored. It means there were no explicit constraints placed on the column's width. It will depend *completely* on the content of the cells occupying that column (max-col-width = min-col-width). Cheers, Andreas -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
