DO NOT REPLY [Bug 40288] - base url requires /, failes otherwise
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=40288. 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=40288 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 20:57 --- Displaying the full URL in the error message sounds like a good solution to me. -- 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.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 40271] - auto table layout -- dirty draft
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 02:25 --- (In reply to comment #4) Not to be a pain, but just committed a small change to the trunk that logs an error for this. http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=432195view=rev Sorry. Kind of invalidates your patch, I guess. :/ I'm confused about this. When I checkout the Apache FOP source code from SVN and try to feed it some .fo files that previously worked with table-layout=auto they fail. In my new patch I commented out your change just so that I may do some testing. I have to understand this better. Thank you for your feedback. Patrick -- 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.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 40271] - auto table layout -- dirty draft
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 02:29 --- Created an attachment (id=18736) -- (http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18736action=view) New patch. Now works better. Still needs work for spanned cells. I'm no longer using a new property to store my minimum column values, as pointed out by Andreas. I have also fixed some bugs in the optimal width calculation. This is still a drafty patch. Patrick -- 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.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 40271] - auto table layout -- dirty draft
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 02:45 --- (In reply to comment #3) Looking a bit closer, IMO the minimum column-width should be derived from the layout context. Count the number of non-null elements in the Table's column-list (one time process), then divide the refIPD of the layout-context by the number of explicitly defined columns (alt.: the largest number of cells in a row --that is a value that could be determined in the FOTree, before layout begins) 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) Do you mean that we would consider the default column-width to be the one calculated as you describe ? Patrick -- 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.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 40271] - auto table layout -- dirty draft
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 05:45 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
I'm confused about this. When I checkout the Apache FOP source code from SVN
and
try to feed it some .fo files that previously worked with table-layout=auto
they fail.
Indeed. That's a result from the 'faulty' default for column-width we currently
set in
FOPropertyMapping.
The value proportional-column-width(1) should not be used in case of
table-layout=auto (as per the
Recommendation; strictly speaking the results in case of auto-layout are
undefined...)
It is easy enough to catch this internally, though.
To solve this locally, I made the default an enum value of auto, then checked
for this later on, and
replaced it with a 'new TableColLength(1.0, ...)'
Roughly (in TableColumn.bind(), after setting columnWidth from the
PropertyList):
if (columnWidth.getEnum() == EN_AUTO) {
columnWidth = new TableColLength(1.0, col);
}
This avoids triggering the function-evaluation, which in turn avoids the check
for auto-layout and thus
produces no validation error.
Haven't committed this change, yet, since I was also playing with adding
default columns from cells in
the first row. Goal is to have TableColumn instances for every default column
(instead of only one
default column for the whole table) with their widths set to the width of the
cell they were based on
(ultimately the above described default TableColLength(), if the cell's width
is auto).
In my new patch I commented out your change just so that I may do some
testing.
I have to understand this better.
I hope the above clarifies it a bit. If not, don't hesitate to ask further.
What is also important in case of auto-layout, I think, is that the
minimum-column-width should not
simply be 'the available IPD divided by the number of columns' (or 'one
table-unit').
The big difference with fixed-layout is precisely that, in case of auto-layout
the minimum-column-
width depends on the content. For example: if the column contains only one
character of content each
row, then the column's minimum-width would most likely turn out to be far less
than 'proportional-
column-width(1)'.
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.
