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(_at_)cranesoftwrights(_dot_)com> 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(_at_)CraneSoftwrights(_dot_)com
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
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail:
<mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--