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=42049>. 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=42049 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-09-06 10:33 ------- (In reply to comment #12) <snip /> > and the result is like this: > > unindented block > fo:block > cell 1 cell 2 Yep, because the block does not establish its own reference area, the indent of 0pt on the table is relative to the ancestor reference area of the block. > > I expected the result to be like this: > > unindented block > fo:block > cell 1 cell 2 ... and a lot of users/authors with you, I think. That's precisely why Jeremias dedicated a Wiki page to the issue. > I now realize that it may have to do with "viewport/reference pair" (as > mentioned in the Wiki, referenced to 6.5.3 of the spec.). What I like to do is > to achieve my expect result above. I have now learned this can be accomplished > with the following construction: > > <fo:block>unindented block</fo:block> > <fo:block-container margin-left="10mm"> > <fo:table start-indent="0mm" table-layout="fixed"> Correct. The block-container establishes a new reference area, that will serve as a basis for computing the offset of the enclosed table. One small remark: using 'start-indent' instead of 'margin-left' is considered slightly better style, since start-indent is a 'native' XSL-FO property. margin-left is defined to preserve compatibility with CSS; it is translated into start-indent behind the scenes anyway... margin-left is not inherited, but the computed start-indent is, so it really makes no difference. 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.
