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 16:21 ------- (In reply to comment #3) > 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 I am not sure I follow you. When you talk about the column-list, is that the "ColumnSetup columns " in TableLayoutManager ? > --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. Patrick -- 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.
