Would I be right in assuming that this method removes the header however places a space at the bottom of the page. This is unfortunately what i am finding. :(... The space at the bottom of the parent object (be it a page/ table row) is equivelent in height to that the header / more specifically the text within.
I have tried to implement in a couple of ways and this phenominum keeps occuring. Hope somebody that uses this nifty mod can enlighten me on if there is a way around this. Cheers Carlos Villegas wrote: > > I implemented this extension. I added fox:table-omit-last-footer and > fox:table-omit-first-header attributes to fo:table. It seems to work > well in my use case. > If anyone is interested I can submit a patch. > > Cheers, > Carlos > > Carlos Villegas wrote: >> Thanks for the pointers. I agree that implementing retrieve-table-marker >> is not only a more generic solution but also what the spec requires. >> However, I'm short on time and this seems easier so I'll give it a try >> first. >> >> Regards, >> Carlos >> >> Vincent Hennebert wrote: >>> Hi Carlos, >>> >>> Carlos Villegas wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I searched the mailing lists and it seems that although some people had >>>> worked at several times at trying to implement retrieve-table-marker, >>>> it's not yet done. Is somebody working on this? What's the status? >>> >>> It’s not being worked on at the moment. This is still a missing feature. >>> >>> >>>> In many use cases omitting the first table header and the last table >>>> footer will do the trick. >>>> >>>> How easy is this to implement? >>>> What will be the steps to add such an extension to FOP? >>>> I just started looking at the code so I'm exploring whether this is >>>> viable solution. >>> >>> That might work. You would need to change the >>> o.a.f.layoutmgr.table.TableContentLayoutManager.getNextKnuthElements >>> method. There is a “if (getTableLM().getTable().omitHeaderAtBreak())” >>> test that you could augment with a “&& !(omitFirstHeader)” clause. >>> Likewise for the footer. >>> >>> The easiest is to directly modify that class and re-build FOP. A bit >>> less easy would be to add a variable in the configuration file, so that >>> you can enable it only for certain FO files. Even less easy would be to >>> add an extension property to fo:table so that you can enable it only for >>> some tables of an FO document. Please ask if you need more details. >>> >>> All that said, such a change would be very hacky and, unless there is >>> overwhelming demand from the user community, I would oppose to integrate >>> it in the code base. This is a patch that you would have to maintain on >>> your side. Better would be of course to actually implement >>> retrieve-table-marker. Although this would be more involving than >>> implementing this little trick... >>> >>> >>> HTH, >>> Vincent >>> >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/omit-first-table-header-last-footer-tp25640345p32503728.html Sent from the FOP - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
