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 05:45 ------- (In reply to comment #11) > I'm confused about this. When I checkout the Apache FOP source code from SVN > and > try to feed it some .fo files that previously worked with table-layout="auto" > they fail. Indeed. That's a result from the 'faulty' default for column-width we currently set in FOPropertyMapping. The value "proportional-column-width(1)" should not be used in case of table-layout="auto" (as per the Recommendation; strictly speaking the results in case of auto-layout are undefined...) It is easy enough to catch this internally, though. To solve this locally, I made the default an enum value of "auto", then checked for this later on, and replaced it with a 'new TableColLength(1.0, ...)' Roughly (in TableColumn.bind(), after setting columnWidth from the PropertyList): if (columnWidth.getEnum() == EN_AUTO) { columnWidth = new TableColLength(1.0, col); } This avoids triggering the function-evaluation, which in turn avoids the check for auto-layout and thus produces no validation error. Haven't committed this change, yet, since I was also playing with adding default columns from cells in the first row. Goal is to have TableColumn instances for every default column (instead of only one default column for the whole table) with their widths set to the width of the cell they were based on (ultimately the above described default TableColLength(), if the cell's width is "auto"). > In my new patch I commented out your change just so that I may do some > testing. > I have to understand this better. I hope the above clarifies it a bit. If not, don't hesitate to ask further. 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. For example: if the column contains only one character of content each row, then the column's minimum-width would most likely turn out to be far less than 'proportional- column-width(1)'. 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.
