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=42049.
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=42049
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-09-06 10:33 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
snip /
and the result is like this:
unindented block
fo:block
cell 1 cell 2
Yep, because the block does not establish its own reference area, the indent of
0pt on the table is
relative to the ancestor reference area of the block.
I expected the result to be like this:
unindented block
fo:block
cell 1 cell 2
... and a lot of users/authors with you, I think. That's precisely why Jeremias
dedicated a Wiki page to
the issue.
I now realize that it may have to do with viewport/reference pair (as
mentioned in the Wiki, referenced to 6.5.3 of the spec.). What I like to do is
to achieve my expect result above. I have now learned this can be accomplished
with the following construction:
fo:blockunindented block/fo:block
fo:block-container margin-left=10mm
fo:table start-indent=0mm table-layout=fixed
Correct. The block-container establishes a new reference area, that will serve
as a basis for computing
the offset of the enclosed table.
One small remark: using 'start-indent' instead of 'margin-left' is considered
slightly better style, since
start-indent is a 'native' XSL-FO property.
margin-left is defined to preserve compatibility with CSS; it is translated
into start-indent behind the
scenes anyway... margin-left is not inherited, but the computed start-indent
is, so it really makes no
difference.
Cheers
Andreas
--
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.
