[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOP-2450?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15826271#comment-15826271
]
simon steiner commented on FOP-2450:
See FOP-2469
> [PATCH] implementation for table-layout=&q
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOP-2450?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
simon steiner resolved FOP-2450.
Resolution: Duplicate
> [PATCH] implementation for table-layout=&q
Hi,
I implemented the table-layout='auto' feature for the stable version FOP
1.1. A corresponding patch (three iterations by now) is attached to
issue 2450 ([1] which, admittedly, had an ambiguous title before). I
already tentatively merged the first iteration into a trunk version
which makes I'm
to work on the table-layout=auto feature.
Inspired by the postprocessing done in issue FOP-1226, I tried to propagate the
computed values up the rendering process. Finally, I decided to opt for
preprocessing and what can I tell you - it works, even for auto tables in fixed
tables in auto tables (see
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOP-2450?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Gregor Berg updated FOP-2450:
-
Attachment: 2015-03-05-auto-fop-1_1v3.patch
[PATCH] preprocessing for table-layout=auto
(fixes
main problem of V1)
- for now, at least one specific type of ExternalGraphic propagates a suitable
width requirement
- removed redundant code
[PATCH] preprocessing for table-layout=auto
-
Key: FOP-2450
URL: https
in other tables propagate their width requirements (fixes
main problem of V1)
- for now, at least one specific type of ExternalGraphic propagates a suitable
width requirement
- removed redundant code
[PATCH] preprocessing for table-layout=auto
Gregor Berg created FOP-2450:
Summary: [PATCH] preprocessing for table-layout=auto
Key: FOP-2450
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOP-2450
Project: Fop
Issue Type: New Feature
the dimensions are propagated as would be expected, the current version
does not respect the boundaries of the page (i.e., given enough content, the
table will overflow to the right *without a warning*)
[PATCH] preprocessing for table-layout=auto
,
- comment level: low-medium
[PATCH] preprocessing for table-layout=auto
-
Key: FOP-2450
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOP-2450
Project: Fop
Issue Type: New Feature
Components
-table.xml.pdf
while the dimensions are propagated as would be expected, the current version
does not respect the boundaries of the page (i.e., given enough content, the
table will overflow to the right *without a warning*)
[PATCH] preprocessing for table-layout=auto
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51551
Glenn Adams gad...@apache.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51551
Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO|RESOLVED
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51551
Bug #: 51551
Summary: WARN [FONode] Warning(Unknown location): fo:table,
table-layout=auto
Product: Fop
Version: all
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows XP
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51551
Pascal Sancho pascal.san...@takoma.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |NEEDINFO
devs,
Would this be suitable for a GSoC project? It is certainly not
trivial, and the candidate should have a reasonable chance of success.
Simon
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 04:57:47PM +, Peterdk wrote:
Hi,
I am wondering, I need a basic version of table-layout=auto. It's not yet
need a basic version of table-layout=auto. It's not yet
implemented with FOP.
I am willing to set a bounty of max 250$ for it, if it's implemented to a
level that I can use it for my project.
Are there any devs interested and willing to work on this? For the bounty
it would be needed to be ready
FOP devs,
Would this be suitable for a GSoC project? It is certainly not
trivial, and the candidate should have a reasonable chance of success.
Simon
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 04:57:47PM +, Peterdk wrote:
Hi,
I am wondering, I need a basic version of table-layout=auto. It's not yet
Jess Holle wrote:
I had thought/hoped 0.93 supported table-layout=auto as I know there
was a GSOC project along these lines, yet I note that the compliance
table does not indicate such support.
Is the table in error? If not, how far off is such support?
No, the compliance page is correct
I had thought/hoped 0.93 supported table-layout=auto as I know there
was a GSOC project along these lines, yet I note that the compliance
table does not indicate such support.
Is the table in error? If not, how far off is such support?
--
Jess Holle
20 matches
Mail list logo
