On 09.02.2007 18:43:40 Andreas L Delmelle wrote: > On Feb 9, 2007, at 18:22, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > > > > An extension isn't necessary. This can be expressed with normal FO > > means: Specify block-progression-dimension.optimum="100%" and > > block-progression-dimension.minimum="0pt" on the last table-row. > > Hmm... but that property is not directly applicable to a table-row, > IIRC. Only 'height' is applicable to tables or table-rows. The fun > then truly begins when you read the Rec's definition of the 'height' > property... 8) > > "For a discussion of the "height" property in tables see: http:// > www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/tables.html" > > OK, and so we browse through the CSS Rec(*), and there it says: > > "CSS2 does not define what percentage values of 'height' refer to > when specified for table rows and row groups." > > (*) http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/tables.html#height-layout
That's what CSS2 says, not XSL. > I'd very much like to agree with your solution/interpretation, but > the nit in me feels compelled to ask: > "100% of what?" XSL 1.1 says for percentages in block-progression-dimension: The percentage is calculated with respect to the corresponding dimension of the closest area ancestor that was generated by a block-level formatting object. If that dimension is not specified explicitly (i.e., it depends on content's block-progression-dimension), the value is interpreted as "auto". But that's a weird statement IMO. If the table's parent is a block, the block's height depends on the content's size. Circular dependency. It would make more sense to say: "...of the closest anscestor that is a reference area..." Shrug. See also: http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl11/#percrule > What do other processors do in that case? Haven't checked. Jeremias Maerki --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
