Re: FO Table widths - table-layout fixed behaviour and

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