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

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?

  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?

--
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