On Aug 28, 2005, at 15:57, Manuel Mall wrote:
This is just a clarification question to those in the know.
In HTML when specifying a table browsers usually choose the smallest
width without causing unforced breaks in columns. That is in XSL-FO
terms the ipd of the table can be smaller than the containing block. In
the current fop version it appears as if the table width is always
forced to the width of the containing block, i.e. it behaves like
setting width="100%" in HTML on the table. I compared this to XEP and
it renders more like HTML.
Is this a feature, a bug, a not yet implemented, or do I misunderstand
What layout-algorithm are you referring to exactly: fixed or auto?
table-layout="auto" is still unimplemented ATM. There have been
numerous loose remarks about this in various threads, but no real work
on this has started AFAIK.
As for table-layout="fixed", CSS states that:
"The table's width may be specified explicitly with the 'width'
property. A value of 'auto' ... means use the automatic table layout
So, all things considered, if one doesn't specify an exact (fixed or
percentage) IPD on the table, I think this means it is currently
I haven't run any tests myself, but if FOP silently supposes a default
inline-progression-dimension="100%" in this case, then that would
definitely be a bug.
We could either:
- drop the table completely (+ warn about this, of course)
- explicitly notify the user that, because auto-layout is not
supported, the default value of "auto" is ignored and replaced by
- throw a FOPException and exit