https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=113604
--- Comment #17 from Christian Lehmann <christianw_lehm...@arcor.de> --- Heiko's mockup solves a number of problems. However, it does not contribute much to the problem of optimal column width. We require a definition of this concept to begin with. The idea behind it appears to be this: The columns of a table have optimal width if, for a given table width, the table height is the smallest possible and no column is wider than necessary. The table width may be "given" because the user defined it or set it to the page width. It is, however, also possible that the user had produced an interim width just for the while that he fills the cells and afterwards wants it to be set automatically to the minimum necessary width. There are, then, at the moment that the user triggers 'optimal column width', two possible start situations depending on whether or not the user has set and locked the table width. In the former case, the procedure producing optimal column width does have to get by on the given table width. In the latter case, the procedure first determines the minimum height for the maximal table width and then shrinks the table and column width down to the point where it leads to a heightened table height. This presupposes that there be, on the table configuration mockup and under 'Position/Size', an additional line for the table width (which in the mockup misleadingly is under 'Columns') and which the user may or may not 'lock'. If he does, he limits his freedom to set the column widths. If he does not, triggering 'optimal column width' will set it to the possible minimum. I attach an example file which illustrates what is meant and also a bug. Moreover, all of this does not yet solve the problem of making 'optimal column width' persistent. This could be an option in the box presented for 'Insert table', side by side, and of equal status, with 'Don't split table over pages.' -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
