Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Options for width attribute in tables

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:40:14 +0100

On 2013-11-07 20:21, Tony Hansen wrote:
> +1 to keeping 'em'.
>
> This falls in the two categories of v2 parity with v1, and making tables
> as useful as they are in html.
>
> Isn't '*' is pretty much equivalent to the default of "shift things
> around to make them fit"?
>
>      Tony
> ...

I'm going to document "%" only (for now).

What would "em" mean in terms of HTML tables and non-monospaced fonts? 
(keep in mind that one CSS "em" will be really wide usually).

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 21:38:48 -0500

In message <[email-masked]>
> (keep in mind that one CSS "em" will be really wide usually).

"em" meaning is that same as in TeX (which does proportional font as
you may be aware).  "em" means width of the letter "m" which is one of
the wider characters in the ascii part of the font at least.  Tex also
lets you get the length of a specific string in the current font, but
afaik HTML does not though you could probably do it in some reasonably
simple javascript if you wanted to get carried away (you don't I
hope).  Stick with "em" == width of "m".  Also "ex" is the width of
"x" (which is a more narrow character) if you want to follow TeX and
HTML units.

Curtis

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 08:06:20 +0100

> you may be aware).  "em" means width of the letter "m" which is one of

Yes, that's a CSS "em" as well. It won't work well, because it'll be too 
wide in most cases.

I'd prefer to look at this problem pragmatically:

1) Provide an example of a texttable that requires a non-% width unit.

2) Suggest how that unit would be processed when generating an HTML table.

Best regards, Julian