On Sep 16, 2005, at 16:31, Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
YES! Got it.
Ok, so I ended up thoroughly revising my approach, to account for the
starts-row/ends-row issue that was the topic of this thread.
One thing I also hadn't considered, but which I also succeeded in
dealing with now, is
On Sep 15, 2005, at 16:05, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Jeremias,
Ok, let me then explicitely state that my previous mail contained my
own
interpretation and no facts. IMO there are certain gaps and
inaccuracies
in the spec and I tried to take my own expectations and create an
interpretation that
On 16.09.2005 11:43:37 Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
On Sep 15, 2005, at 16:05, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Jeremias,
Ok, let me then explicitely state that my previous mail contained my
own
interpretation and no facts. IMO there are certain gaps and
inaccuracies
in the spec and I tried
[Jeremias and Andreas on starts-row ends-row]
My take is that only a true value is used to determine a change in
row. It makes no difference to the fo-tree or to layout if a default
false or an explicit false is found.
[7.26.15]
The starts-row and ends-row properties with a true value are
On Sep 16, 2005, at 12:15, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Absolutely no resentment here. I'm sorry for sending the wrong signals.
I simply realized that I was not clear enough that the stuff I wrote is
just my opinion. Stuff like that always happens if I don't want to lose
too much time. Sigh.
Ok,
On Sep 16, 2005, at 12:26, Finn Bock wrote:
My take is that only a true value is used to determine a change in
row. It makes no difference to the fo-tree or to layout if a default
false or an explicit false is found.
FWIW: That was precisely my understanding too, hence my speaking of a
On Sep 16, 2005, at 16:00, Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
Well, currently you both got me convinced about this. I'm working on
it --but a bit frustrated, since that was really the *only* case where
it failed. All other situations are handled nicely including
row-spans... --even when a user would
On 15.09.2005 12:59:54 Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
Hi people,
Just finished implementing the initial values for the column-number
property.
(Subversion still complains about files remaining in conflict, though,
so I'll have to check those out first. Have to go now, but commit will
most
On 15.09.2005 13:35:20 Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
On Sep 15, 2005, at 13:18, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
There are no hints in the spec that indicate that the lack of an
ends-row
is an error if someone uses starts-row. You can perfectly split a bag
full of cells into tables with only the
On Sep 15, 2005, at 13:50, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
snip /
But it should be clear that an explicitely defined property should
override the default on the other corresponding property.
Hmmm... 'should be clear'? No offence, but that is interpretation, not
fact.
The term 'corresponding
Ok, let me then explicitely state that my previous mail contained my own
interpretation and no facts. IMO there are certain gaps and inaccuracies
in the spec and I tried to take my own expectations and create an
interpretation that makes sense. Let me just say that I would really,
really hate to
11 matches
Mail list logo
