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] 2006-08-17 09:21 ------- Looking a bit closer, IMO the minimum column-width should be derived from the layout context. Count the number of non-null elements in the Table's column-list (one time process), then divide the refIPD of the layout-context by the number of explicitly defined columns (alt.: the largest number of cells in a row --that is a value that could be determined in the FOTree, before layout begins) Strictly speaking, I think a value of 'proportional-column-width(1)' does not always suffice... How is this expression to be interpreted in case of a table with table-layout="auto", no explicit rows, and a varying number of cells in each row? I guess the editors had good reason to constrain the explicit use of proportional-column-width() to fixed- table-layout. -- 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.