patch, 2015-03-05-auto-fop-1_1v3.patch,
> auto-table-in-fixed-table-in-auto-table.xml,
> auto-table-in-fixed-table-in-auto-table.xml.pdf,
> resize-all-but-static-spanned-columns.pdf,
> resize-all-but-static-spanned-columns.xml
>
>
> Hi everybody,
> *update*: changed the
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOP-2450?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
simon steiner resolved FOP-2450.
Resolution: Duplicate
> [PATCH] implementation for table-layout=&q
Hi,
I implemented the table-layout='auto' feature for the stable version FOP
1.1. A corresponding patch (three iterations by now) is attached to
issue 2450 ([1] which, admittedly, had an ambiguous title before). I
already tentatively merged the first iteration into a trunk version
which
work on the table-layout="auto" feature.
Inspired by the postprocessing done in issue FOP-1226, I tried to propagate the
computed values up the rendering process. Finally, I decided to opt for
preprocessing and what can I tell you - it works, even for auto tables in fixed
tables in auto t
uirements (fixes
main problem of V1)
- for now, at least one specific type of ExternalGraphic propagates a suitable
width requirement
- removed redundant code
> [PATCH] preprocessing for table-layout="auto"
> -
>
>
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOP-2450?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Gregor Berg updated FOP-2450:
-
Attachment: 2015-03-05-auto-fop-1_1v3.patch
> [PATCH] preprocessing for table-layout=&q
other tables propagate their width requirements (fixes
main problem of V1)
- for now, at least one specific type of ExternalGraphic propagates a suitable
width requirement
- removed redundant code
> [PATCH] preprocessing for table-layout=&q
the dimensions are propagated as would be expected, the current version
does not respect the boundaries of the page (i.e., given enough content, the
table will overflow to the right *without a warning*)
> [PATCH] preprocessing for table-layou
-table.xml.pdf
while the dimensions are propagated as would be expected, the current version
does not respect the boundaries of the page (i.e., given enough content, the
table will overflow to the right *without a warning*)
> [PATCH] preprocessing for table-layout=&q
-columns.xml
example fo file and its result
> [PATCH] preprocessing for table-layout="auto"
> -
>
> Key: FOP-2450
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOP-2450
> Project: Fop
>
,
- comment level: low-medium
> [PATCH] preprocessing for table-layout="auto"
> -
>
> Key: FOP-2450
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOP-2450
> Project: Fop
>
Gregor Berg created FOP-2450:
Summary: [PATCH] preprocessing for table-layout="auto"
Key: FOP-2450
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOP-2450
Project: Fop
Issue Type: N
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51551
Glenn Adams changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #3 from Glenn Ada
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51551
Glenn Adams changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO|RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51551
Pascal Sancho changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |NEEDINFO
--- Comment #1 from Pasca
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51551
Bug #: 51551
Summary: WARN [FONode] Warning(Unknown location): fo:table,
table-layout="auto"
Product: Fop
Version: all
Platform: PC
OS/Version:
his be suitable for a GSoC project? It is certainly not
>>> trivial, and the candidate should have a reasonable chance of success.
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 04:57:47PM +, Peterdk wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>&
:24, Simon Pepping wrote:
>
>> FOP devs,
>>
>> Would this be suitable for a GSoC project? It is certainly not
>> trivial, and the candidate should have a reasonable chance of success.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 04:57:47PM +, Pete
; Simon
>
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 04:57:47PM +, Peterdk wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am wondering, I need a basic version of table-layout=auto. It's not yet
> > implemented with FOP.
> > I am willing to set a bounty of max 250$ for it, if it's
FOP devs,
Would this be suitable for a GSoC project? It is certainly not
trivial, and the candidate should have a reasonable chance of success.
Simon
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 04:57:47PM +, Peterdk wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am wondering, I need a basic version of table-layout=auto.
Hi,
I am wondering, I need a basic version of table-layout=auto. It's not yet
implemented with FOP.
I am willing to set a bounty of max 250$ for it, if it's implemented to a
level that I can use it for my project.
Are there any devs interested and willing to work on this? For the bount
Jess Holle wrote:
I had thought/hoped 0.93 supported table-layout="auto" as I know there
was a GSOC project along these lines, yet I note that the compliance
table does not indicate such support.
Is the table in error? If not, how far off is such support?
No, the complian
I had thought/hoped 0.93 supported table-layout="auto" as I know there
was a GSOC project along these lines, yet I note that the compliance
table does not indicate such support.
Is the table in error? If not, how far off is such support?
--
Jess Holle
23 matches
Mail list logo
