Subject: Re: Table workaround
From: Martin Sevior (msevior@mccubbin.ph.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Wed Dec 20 2000 - 08:06:14 CST
On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, Mike Nordell wrote:
> Dom Lachowicz wrote:
> > So the picture would be more like:
> >
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > + IMAGE + This is "Foo" +
> > + Hi + Yo + Guten Tag +
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Oh, now I get it. But if every "table-line" was a "layout-line" (not ==
> fp_Line) and *it* took care of its cells height, and every cell got its own
> layouter (which it would have to), then I fail to see the problem. Either
> I'm too simplistic or to ignorant for my own good, or this is the way to do
> it.
You also have to handle the case of
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ + text here + This is foo +
+ Big + and here + me here +
+ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Image + + +
+ + Next here + finally +
+ Here + + now this too +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
With a per line description "Big Image" spans two lines. You have to allow
your line representation of a blank area to be over-written by another
line.
If we did not allow this we could easily make tables with our present
layout code by employing a series of sections with a defined column
number.
Have a little play with the "insert Break" and choose section breaks, then
choose the number of columns in each section. There is no reason we have
to be limited to 3 columns per section.
I'll follow up your other points later. Gotta go to bed now.
Martin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Wed Dec 20 2000 - 08:06:23 CST