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] 2006-08-21 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.