On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 10:15 pm, Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
> 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 something?
>
> What layout-algorithm are you referring to exactly: fixed or auto?
>
I was referring to "auto" and because fop just silently did it I had the 
wrong impression it was implemented.

> 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
> algorithm."
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/tables.html#width-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
> unimplemented.
> 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
> "100%"
I second that for the time being.
> - throw a FOPException and exit
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andreas
Manuel

Reply via email to