Subject: Re: Topic: Tables and 1.0
From: WJCarpenter (bill-abisource@carpenter.ORG)
Date: Sun May 06 2001 - 11:58:58 CDT
ms> Hi Leonard, Well here is my current thinking about the piecetable
ms> structure of table.
Description sounded like an OK first pass to me.
ms> Hmm I'm not sure at this point whether it is better to have the
ms> cells know about how many rows and columns they span. It is
ms> probabally to better to have just the TableStrux define that. Then
ms> the CellStrux is just a dumb rectangular holder of BlockStruxes.
In the words of the 8-ball, "it is decidedly so".
lr> If you are not doing the "mini-document" approach, then yes, you
lr> should be able to do cross cell selection. However, that will
lr> mean a LOT more work to implement based on changes to the existing
lr> layout engine/piece table.
ms> I think you're right but it is worth the effort.
I will be completely shocked if the path to recursive tables doesn't
uncover and cause you (or whoever) to strengthen AbiWord's dealing in
general with recursive structures. The current set of "hard" notions
about sections and such always reminds me of having drive letters in
DOS. For example, can you do header and footer sections within a
header right now (not talking about the UI ... talking about the
model)? Stuff like that tends to get eliminated as "that use case
isn't important", but the rationalization is really "that use case is
hard with our code base".
-- bill@carpenter.ORG (WJCarpenter) PGP 0x91865119 38 95 1B 69 C9 C6 3D 25 73 46 32 04 69 D6 ED F3
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Sat May 26 2001 - 03:51:03 CDT