DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUGĀ·
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 ANDĀ·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40271





------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-08-21 05:58 -------
(In reply to comment #14)
<snip />

> What is also important in case of auto-layout, I think, is that the 
> minimum-column-width should not 
> simply be 'the available IPD divided by the number of columns' (or 'one 
> table-unit'). 
> The big difference with fixed-layout is precisely that, in case of 
> auto-layout the minimum-column-
> width depends on the content.

Just thought I'd add:
This actually means that for auto-layout, if we encounter a TableColumn whose 
width is an instance of 
TableColLength, then this width should be ignored. It means there were no 
explicit constraints placed 
on the column's width. It will depend *completely* on the content of the cells 
occupying that column 
(max-col-width = min-col-width).

Cheers,

Andreas


-- 
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.

Reply via email to