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?

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?

Thanks,

Karl..



On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 1:41 PM, David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> me> wrong
> Tony> correction
>
> Ooops, sorry, thanks for the correction.
>
> David
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England
> and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is:
> Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR, United Kingdom.
>
> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is
> powered by MessageLabs.
> ________________________________________________________________________