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 05:58 --- (In reply to comment #14) snip / 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. Just thought I'd add: This actually means that for auto-layout, if we encounter a TableColumn whose width is an instance of TableColLength, then this width should be ignored. It means there were no explicit constraints placed on the column's width. It will depend *completely* on the content of the cells occupying that column (max-col-width = min-col-width). 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.
Bug report for Fop [2006/08/20]
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned|
| | OPN=ReopenedVER=Verified(Skipped Closed/Resolved) |
| | +-+
| | | Severity: BLK=Blocker CRI=CriticalMAJ=Major |
| | | MIN=Minor NOR=Normal ENH=Enhancement |
| | | +-+
| | | | Date Posted |
| | | | +--+
| | | | | Description |
| | | | | |
| 953|Opn|Nor|2001-03-12|Incorrect hyperlinks area rendering in justified t|
| 1063|New|Nor|2001-03-21|fop does not handle large fo files|
| 1180|New|Maj|2001-04-02|Problem with monospaced font |
| 1859|Opn|Min|2001-05-22|org.apache.fop.apps.Driver.reset() doesn't fully r|
| 1998|New|Nor|2001-06-05|linefeed-treatment not understood |
| 2150|Ass|Maj|2001-06-13|New page with a table-header but without any tabl|
| 2475|Ass|Nor|2001-07-06|Borders don't appear to work in fo:table-row|
| 2740|New|Maj|2001-07-23|multi-page tables sometimes render badly |
| 2909|New|Maj|2001-07-30|Gradient render error |
| 2964|Ass|Nor|2001-08-02|problems with height of cells in tables |
| 2988|New|Maj|2001-08-03|0.19: list-item-label does not stick to list-item-|
| 3044|Ass|Maj|2001-08-08|keep-together not functioning |
| 3280|New|Nor|2001-08-27|PCL Renderer doesn't work |
| 3305|Opn|Nor|2001-08-28|list-block overlapping footnote body |
| 3497|New|Cri|2001-09-07|id already exists error when using span=all attr|
| 3824|New|Blk|2001-09-25|MIF option with tables|
| 4030|New|Nor|2001-10-08|IOException creating Postscript with graphics on S|
| 4126|New|Nor|2001-10-12|FontState.width() returns pts instead of millipts |
| 4226|New|Nor|2001-10-17|The orphans property doesn't seem to work |
| 4388|New|Nor|2001-10-24|Nullpointer exception in the construction of new D|
| 4415|New|Nor|2001-10-25|scaling=uniform does not work on images... |
| 4510|New|Nor|2001-10-30|fo:inline common properties ignored? |
| 4535|New|Maj|2001-10-31|PCL renderer 1.13 not rendering SVG |
| 4767|New|Nor|2001-11-09|SVG text is distored in PDF output|
| 5001|New|Nor|2001-11-21|content-width and content-height ignored? |
| 5010|New|Enh|2001-11-21|Better error reporting needed |
| 5124|New|Maj|2001-11-27|fo:block-container is not rendered properly using |
| 5335|New|Min|2001-12-10|Text with embedded CID fonts not retrievable from |
| 5655|Ass|Nor|2002-01-02|text-decoration cannot take multiple values |
| 6094|Opn|Maj|2002-01-29|0.20.3rc hangs in endless loop|
| 6237|Opn|Nor|2002-02-05|#xFB01 (fi ligature) produces a sharp? |
| 6305|New|Nor|2002-02-07|Using fo:table-and-caption results in empty output|
| 6427|New|Enh|2002-02-13|Adding additional Type 1 fonts problem|
| 6437|New|Maj|2002-02-13|Tables without fo:table-column don't render |
| 6483|New|Nor|2002-02-15|Table, Loop, footer could not fit on page, moving|
| 6844|New|Nor|2002-03-04|No line breaks inserted in list-item-label|
| 6918|New|Enh|2002-03-06|reference-orientation has no effect |
| 6997|New|Nor|2002-03-09|[PATCH] Row-spanned row data breaks over a page wi|
| 7241|New|Nor|2002-03-19|keep-with-previous, keep-with-next only working on|
| 7283|New|Nor|2002-03-20|Table border misaligned when using margin-left in |
| 7337|New|Nor|2002-03-21|border around external image leaves empty space |
| 7487|New|Nor|2002-03-26|break-before=page for table inserts empty page |
| 7496|New|Nor|2002-03-26|The table header borders are not adjusted to the b|
| 7525|New|Cri|2002-03-27|table with spans inside a list-block |
| 7919|New|Cri|2002-04-10|problem to use attribute linefeed-treatment and li|
| 8003|Ass|Maj|2002-04-12|FopImageFactory never releases cached images |
| 8050|New|Nor|2002-04-13|Soft hyphen (shy;) is not handled properly |
| 8321|New|Nor|2002-04-19|from-parent('width') returns 0 for nested tables |
| 8463|New|Nor|2002-04-24|SVG clipping in external.fo example doc when rende|
| 8767|Ass|Min|2002-05-03|Image and solid colour background rectangle sizes |
| 8819|New|Nor|2002-05-06|Footnotes lost|
|
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 06:10 --- (In reply to comment #12) Created an attachment (id=18736) -- (http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18736action=view) [edit] New patch. Now works better. Still needs work for spanned cells. There is a reference to a TableHelper, but this file is not included in the patch. Can you attach it separately? Thanks, 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.
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 08:07 --- (In reply to comment #13) 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) Indeed! That only occurred to me afterwards... sorry. OTOH, this also means that you can't depend on 'proportional-column-width()', no? If there was no width specified, neither on the column, nor on the cell, then both minimum and maximum depend on the content (of the whole table :)) The only thing we know about the optimum width is that it lies somewhere in between, but it is independent of something like a 'default column width' (which we had defined wrongly in the first place). Do you mean that we would consider the default column-width to be the one calculated as you describe ? Yep. But, again, in the strict sense, this 'default' is irrelevant for auto-layout. -- 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 20:56 --- (In reply to comment #17) snip/ If there was no width specified, neither on the column, nor on the cell, then both minimum and maximum depend on the content (of the whole table :)) Again, not necessarily. We don't have to scan the whole table for the algorithm. snip/ -- 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.
Re: Fwd: svn commit: r433291 ...
Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
snip /
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=433291view=rev
Log:
Rework of default column-creation and setting column-widths from the
first row (fixes Bugzilla 35656)
For Patrick, only this tiny bit changes:
The following part is moved from TableLM to ColumnSetup. I see in the
initial GSoC-patch that this is bypassed in case of auto-layout.
Shouldn't be too much trouble adapting the patch to take this into
account.
-// either works out table of column widths or if
proportional-column-width function
-// is used works out total factor, so that value of single
unit can be computed.
-int sumCols = 0;
-float factors = 0;
-for (Iterator i = columns.iterator(); i.hasNext();) {
-TableColumn column = (TableColumn) i.next();
-if (column != null) {
-Length width = column.getColumnWidth();
-sumCols += width.getValue(this);
-if (width instanceof TableColLength) {
-factors += ((TableColLength)
width).getTableUnits();
-}
-}
-}
-// sets TABLE_UNITS in case where one or more oldColumns is
defined using
-// proportional-column-width
-if (sumCols getContentAreaIPD()) {
-if (tableUnits == 0.0) {
-this.tableUnits = (getContentAreaIPD() - sumCols) /
factors;
-}
+/* initialize unit to determine computed values
+ * for proportional-column-width()
+ */
+if (tableUnit == 0.0) {
+this.tableUnit = columns.computeTableUnit(this);
}
Cheers,
Andreas
Andreas,
In ColumnSetup.getXOffset you use the width of the columns that are
stored in the new ArrayList named colWidths that you created. The
problem is that my algorigthm changes the widths of the columns but that
isn't reflected in colWidths, so the returned offset isn't the right one.
Maybe I missed something, or should I be updating the colWidths
ArrayList rather than widths of the columns directly ?
Thank you,
Patrick
Re: svn commit: r433291 ...
On Aug 21, 2006, at 23:08, Patrick Paul wrote: snip / Maybe I missed something, or should I be updating the colWidths ArrayList rather than widths of the columns directly? Correct. Feel free to add accessors if that simplifies your work. I decided to separate the widths from the columns, so in a farther future we may release the TableColumns themselves sooner (if we do the same for the borders and backgrounds). Cheers, Andreas
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] 2006-08-22 03:26 --- Created an attachment (id=18738) -- (http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18738action=view) testcase for table-layout =auto I can't get the checks right. 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #18726|0 |1 is obsolete|| Attachment #18736|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-22 03:29 --- Created an attachment (id=18739) -- (http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18739action=view) New patch. Works with Andreas modifications. Here is my new patch. It works with Adreas new modifications. I will address Andreas questions and comments tomorrow. Thank you, 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.
