Subject: Re: [xsl] FO Table widths - table-layout fixed behaviour and use From: "Karl Stubsjoen" <kstubs@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 11:48:26 -0700 |
Ok, thanks for clarifying Ken, and your interpretation of the specs is always very helpful, for example, I do not fully understand what "inline-progression-dimension" means. I have also ran a couple of simple examples and am finding similar results. Thanks, Karl.. On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 11:00 AM, G. Ken Holman <gkholman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > At 2008-10-03 10:27 -0700, you wrote: >> >> Just bubbling this back to the top of the list... I'm going to play >> with this feature a little today, so will be able offer some feedback >> on this one. >> >> [From July 22nd, I wrote] >> Ok, when I correctly use column-width for table-column, the fixed >> width layout and total width of table renders as expected: a 5 inch >> wide table. >> >> However, I am with Tony, and assuming that the same result could be >> achieved as I originally suggested, by specifying table-cell widths in >> each table-cell of the first row. This does not seem to be supported >> though. Can anyone confirm this? > > Looking at http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xsl11-20061205/ section 6.7.3 > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xsl11-20061205/#fo_table I note that in the > absence of an inline-progression-dimension= *on the table itself* the > automatic table layout *shall* be used, which can make up its own mind. > > The operative paragraph reads: > > The inline-progression-dimension of the content-rectangle of the table > is the sum of the inline-progression-dimensions of the columns in the > table grid. The method used to determine these inline-progression- > dimensions is governed by the values of the table-layout and the > inline-progression-dimension traits in the following manner > > (after which the combinations show that fixed table layout is only > used when the width of the content rectangle of the table is specified; > otherwise the automatic table layout *shall* be used). > >> Also, one more behaviour which I am use to, is the omition of 1 >> table-cell width of a set of declared table cell widths would result >> in a table width of 100%, where the omitted table-cell width stretches >> to accomodate (all other table-cell widths adhere to their designated >> width value). Is this the expected behaviour of FO? > > I think that paragraph above is quite explicit. If you don't specify a > width on the table then automatic table layout will be used. If you don't > specify the width of columns using table-column= then when using automatic > table layout the formatter can make any decisions it wishes on the > unspecified column widths for the entire table. > > I've worked through some tests with a few formatters and I'm getting > consistent and expected results. > > I hope this helps. > > . . . . . . . Ken > > -- > Upcoming XSLT/XSL-FO hands-on courses: Wellington, NZ 2009-01 > Training tools: Comprehensive interactive XSLT/XPath 1.0/2.0 video > Video sample lesson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrNjJCh7Ppg > Video course overview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTiodiij6gE > G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/s/ > Male Cancer Awareness Nov'07 http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/s/bc > Legal business disclaimers: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] FO Table widths - table-l, G. Ken Holman | Thread | Re: [xsl] FO Table widths - table-l, G. Ken Holman |
Re: [xsl] FO Table widths - table-l, G. Ken Holman | Date | Re: [xsl] FO Table widths - table-l, G. Ken Holman |
Month |