Uh, no. I just wanted to point out that "auto" is not a valid value for column-width. What you probably meant was the case when the user doesn't specify the column-width property in which case the value is not "auto" but "proportional-column-width(1)" (see FOPropertyMapping). If that's correct and usable remains to be seen.
On 13.07.2006 18:20:46 Patrick Paul wrote: > Thank you for the advice. > > I will sum this up on the wiki page. > > So if I understand correctly we have to support certain values even if > they are illegal ? > > Patrick > > Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > >Right, but strictly speaking the value "auto" is illegal for > >column-width. FOP currently defaults to "proportional-column-width(1)" > >if no value is specified. > > > >Another thing we should be careful about is the distinction between the > >value set for table-layout and the effective algorithm to be used. If > >you specify table-layout="fixed" but without an ipd, the rules for > >automatic table layout are activated. > > > >On 12.07.2006 22:55:44 Andreas L Delmelle wrote: > > > > > >>On Jul 12, 2006, at 22:11, Patrick Paul wrote: > >> > >>Hi Patrick, > >> > >> > >> > >>>My first question, really simple but confusing to me, is about what is > >>>supposed to happen when table-layout="fixed" and one of the columns > >>>has > >>>column-width="auto" ? Am I supposed to find out the optimal width > >>>juste for > >>>that column ? > >>> > >>> > >>Yes, but with one big difference compared to table-layout="auto". > >>IIRC, CSS mentions this case explicitly: when table-layout="fixed" > >>and column-width="auto" then the column-widths are ultimately the > >>widths necessary for the cells in the first row. No need to look at > >>the whole table, in any case... > >> > >>Cheers, > >> > >>Andreas > >> > >> > >>Jeremias Maerki > >> Jeremias Maerki
