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 08:07 -------
(In reply to comment #13)
> 
> I'm not sure I follow you. I thought the minimum column-width was to be
> determined by the "largest minimum cell width (or the column 'width', 
> whichever
> is larger)". (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/tables.html#width-layout)

Indeed! That only occurred to me afterwards... sorry. 
OTOH, this also means that you can't depend on 'proportional-column-width()', 
no?

If there was no width specified, neither on the column, nor on the cell, then 
both minimum and 
maximum depend on the content (of the whole table :))

The only thing we know about the optimum width is that it lies somewhere in 
between, but it is 
independent of something like a 'default column width' (which we had defined 
wrongly in the first 
place).

> Do you mean that we would consider the "default" column-width to be the one
> calculated as you describe ?

Yep. But, again, in the strict sense, this 'default' is irrelevant for 
auto-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.

Reply via email to