Re: table-columns and number-columns-spanned
On Jan 12, 2006, at 21:55, gerhard oettl wrote: from Andreas L. Delmelle I see you made the same mistake (?) in interpretation of the Rec that I initially made: the Rec states literally that the column-number for a fo:table-column is 1 plus the column-number of the previous column Literaly you are absolutly right especially if reading the spec to column-number (7.26.8) first. My main argument against this is the description of number-columns-repeated (7.26.12) that says: a) The number-columns-repeated property specifies the repetition of a table-column specification n times; with the same effect as if the fo:table-column formatting object had been repeated n times in the result treewith the same effect as if the fo:table-column formatting object had been repeated n times in the result tree. Yeah, I remember we discussed this at the time I was implementing these in the FOTree, and we took this to be an inconsistency in the Rec... The main issue, I think, that kept me from following the definition under 7.26.12, is that you could end up with a situation where a given table-cell has column-number=2, while there is no column that has that column-number... In your example, the column-number 2 is not assigned to any column. What would you do if a bit further down in the tree, there is a fo:table-cell with column-number=2 ? With number-columns-repeated=N, you create the effect of separate columns occupying column-numbers I to I + N - 1, where I is the initial-value (the parent FO's currentColumnIndex = the previous column's number plus 1). I would distinguish number-columns- spanned=M, precisely by having it not occupy M column indices. If not, what would be the point in having two separate properties? and b) The column-number property, for all but the first, is the column-number of the previous one plus its value of the number-columns-spanned property. now verify a) fo:table-column number-columns-spanned=2 number-columns-repeated=2/ [ initial colnum = default = 1 ] would be expanded according to b) to: fo:table-column number-columns-spanned=2/ [ colnum = 1 ] fo:table-column number-columns-spanned=2/ [ colnum = 3 ] Stop! number-columns-repeated=N means insert a column node like this one N times, where 1 is the default/initial value. in comparison with:with the same effect as if the fo:table-column formatting object had been repeated n times in the result tree fo:table-column number-columns-spanned=2/ [ colnum = 1 ] fo:table-column number-columns-spanned=2/ [ colnum = 2 ] You see the two parts of the spec are not compatible and for this case i would prefere the rule that was given at column-numbers-repeat. As a side-effect the verification-example would produce overlapping table-columns. Hmm... I still think I like the latter more :-) Any table-cell having column-number=1 will occupy the first two columns (because of number-columns-spanned=2 on its corresponding table-column). If no cell has been assigned column-number=1, then a cell having column-number=2 will occupy column 2 and the next, whatever column-span (or column-number!) is specified on that next column. My sight could be wrong, but I think it is a good argument ;-) So could mine... Maybe others have anything to add to all of this? Cheers, Andreas
Re: table-columns and number-columns-spanned
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 11:56:54AM +0100, Andreas L Delmelle wrote: On Jan 12, 2006, at 21:55, gerhard oettl wrote: from Andreas L. Delmelle I see you made the same mistake (?) in interpretation of the Rec that I initially made: the Rec states literally that the column-number for a fo:table-column is 1 plus the column-number of the previous column Literaly you are absolutly right especially if reading the spec to column-number (7.26.8) first. My main argument against this is the description of number-columns-repeated (7.26.12) that says: Yeah, I remember we discussed this at the time I was implementing these in the FOTree, I expected this and searched, but did not succeed. The MARC archive findes nothing (but also not this thread) and the apache eyebrowse link points to a non-existent page. So if you know the timeframe (some month more or less don't matter) where I can look in the archive it would be nice to let me know. and we took this to be an inconsistency in the Rec... Here I can fully agree. But the implementation of fop should not ;-) I can life with every sight, but want to show some pros and cons and want to know which part of the inconsitent Rec should be canceled to adopt the from-table-column function. I see the spec a little overcrowded here by trying to put two features into the table-column element in general and to the number-columns-spanned property in special: I) background information (pointing to column groups in CSS2 for determining the background - in the notes for fo:table) II) as a container for informations that can be used by from-table-column. For II) it would be best to have all column-number / number-columns-spanned pairs allowed (what was in contrast to the table-cell spec not explicitly forbidden and what would mean to have the same column-number used more than once) but I think it a nightmare for I) because how to decide which background-color to use? - and it was not explicitly allowed too. On the other hand the first fallback described in the from-table-column function (retry with number-columns-spanned=1) is useless if every column-number can only be used once. If there is a table-column with the same column-number as the table-cell has you always end at this table-column regardless of the number-columns-spanned on the table-column or on the table-cell. It only would make sense if there are more table-columns with the same column-number but with different number-columns-spanned. Could make everything more complicated than it is already ;-) I am astonished that XSL 1.1 does not clarify anything here. The main issue, I think, that kept me from following the definition under 7.26.12, is that you could end up with a situation where a given table-cell has column-number=2, while there is no column that has that column-number... In your example, the column-number 2 is not assigned to any column. What would you do if a bit further down in the tree, there is a fo:table-cell with column-number=2 ? IMHO it should take the information from the spanned range, if it spannes 1 column or otherwise the default value for the property in question. My base is the (maybe also to freely interpreted) sentence from 7.26.13 that says: 'For an fo:table-column the number-columns-spanned property specifies the number of columns spanned by table-cells that may use properties from this fo:table-column formatting object using the from-table-column() function.' - which i read every cell that has a spanned range (begincol to endcol) that is within the range spanned by the table-column - and which I used as second fallback. With number-columns-repeated=N, you create the effect of separate columns occupying column-numbers I to I + N - 1, where I is the initial-value (the parent FO's currentColumnIndex = the previous column's number plus 1). I would distinguish number-columns- spanned=M, precisely by having it not occupy M column indices. Though I argue against, I have to say that it is a fully legal point of view. If not, what would be the point in having two separate properties? Very right. This is a question I asked myself more than once without any realy answer. The only case I could think where they differ is: fo:table-column column-number=1 number-columns-spanned=5 text-align=center/ fo:table-column column-number=6 number-columns-spanned=2/ etc/ fo:table-cell column-number=4 number-columns-spanned=3 fo:block text-align=from-table-column() Here not all columns spanned by the cell (column 4 to 6) are spanned by the first table-column definition and no table-column with the column-number 4 exists (first fallback-rule for from-table-colum), so it falls back to the default (start). With the current implementation of number-columns-repeated it would end up with center. Any table-cell having column-number=1 will occupy the first two columns (because of number-columns-spanned=2 on its corresponding table-column). If no cell has been assigned
table-columns and number-columns-spanned
Hello AFAICS number-columns-spanned are not recognized for table-columns. A) Specification: The first question for me is of overlapping is allowed here? I did not find an explicit comment on this - maybe I looked not hard enough. At a first glance (when reading the spec to from-table-column) it looks like it was allowed and that only the pair of column-number + number-columns-spanned has to be unique to handle something like that: fo:table-column text-align=left/ fo:table-column text-align=right/ fo:table-column column-number=1 number-columns-spanned=2 text-align=center/ But I think it is not true. B) Implementation: Currently it is ignored and this fragment fo:table-column column-number=1 number-columns-spanned=2/ fo:table-column column-number=3/ throws a gap-error, but should not. B1) I filed a bug (38244) of a possible including of number-columns-spanned into the addColumn (in a early state i have to confess) that only changes two things: B1a) Incorporate the number-columns-spanned for the calculation of the following cell for number-columns-repeated according to spec 7.26.12. B1b) Using the same rule even if no number-culumns-repeated is given. If no overlapping is allowed there is no other chance for implicit column-number to work with number-columns-spanned. B1c) Mark all columns spanned with the used-flag. B1d) The TableColumn will be cloned (commented out for now) The main con is that in the columns list of the table object the positions that are spanned (except the first) are empty (null) and all layoutmanagers that need information from the table-column have to handle it by their own to get the value from the initial column of the spanned range. C) An alternative idea is to implement number-columns-spanned in a kind of number-columns-repeated fake, so that a fo:table-column column-number=1 number-columns-spanned=3/ would end up in three TableColumn objects fo:table-column column-number=1 number-columns-spanned=3/ fo:table-column column-number=2 number-columns-spanned=2/ fo:table-column column-number=3 number-columns-spanned=1/ For my goal (from-table-column) both are equal but i want to do it in that way that fits best (or does not break) the layoutmanagers. gerhard -- .''`. gerhard oettl on Debian/Gnu Linux : :' : `. `'` gpg key: 1024D/D59131AA 2002-06-18 `-
Re: table-columns and number-columns-spanned
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 09:55:57PM +0100, gerhard oettl wrote: fo:table-column number-columns-spanned=2 number-columns-repeated=2/ [ initial colnum = default = 1 ] would be expanded according to b) to: fo:table-column number-columns-spanned=2/ [ colnum = 1 ] fo:table-column number-columns-spanned=2/ [ colnum = 3 ] fo:table-column number-columns-spanned=2/ [ colnum = 5 ] The above represents number-columns-repeated=3. fo:table-column number-columns-spanned=2/ is equivalent to fo:table-column number-columns-spanned=2 number-columns-repeated=1/ (initial value). Simon -- Simon Pepping home page: http://www.leverkruid.nl
