enattab example

enattab example

[Patrick Gundlach]

Hello,

I tried the first example from the natrural tables pdf (enattab.pdf),
and my output looks very compressed. Same on live.contextgarden.net.
Is this the way it should look like? In contrast to the output of the
enattab.pdf file.

\starttext
\bTABLE
\bTR \bTD[nr=3] 1 \eTD \bTD[nc=2] 2/3 \eTD \bTD[nr=3] 4 \eTD \eTR 
\bTR \bTD 2 \eTD \bTD 3 \eTD \eTR 
\bTR \bTD 2 \eTD \bTD 3 \eTD \eTR 
\bTR \bTD[nc=3] 1/2/3 \eTD \bTD 4 \eTD \eTR 
\bTR \bTD 1 \eTD \bTD 2 \eTD \bTD 3 \eTD \bTD 4 \eTD \eTR 
\eTABLE
\stoptext


Patrick
-- 
ConTeXt wiki and more: http://contextgarden.net

Re: enattab example

[Willi Egger]

Hi Patrick,

Your example gives here the same narrow table. I  inserted
\setupTABLE[c][each][width=1cm]
so then I get a better table

Sorry for the second post, I found out the solution with the topframe in 
the second row, but saw then that others hav given this already. -- Too 
late.

Kind regards

Willi

Patrick Gundlach wrote:

>Hello,
>
>I tried the first example from the natrural tables pdf (enattab.pdf),
>and my output looks very compressed. Same on live.contextgarden.net.
>Is this the way it should look like? In contrast to the output of the
>enattab.pdf file.
>
>\starttext
>\bTABLE
>\bTR \bTD[nr=3] 1 \eTD \bTD[nc=2] 2/3 \eTD \bTD[nr=3] 4 \eTD \eTR 
>\bTR \bTD 2 \eTD \bTD 3 \eTD \eTR 
>\bTR \bTD 2 \eTD \bTD 3 \eTD \eTR 
>\bTR \bTD[nc=3] 1/2/3 \eTD \bTD 4 \eTD \eTR 
>\bTR \bTD 1 \eTD \bTD 2 \eTD \bTD 3 \eTD \bTD 4 \eTD \eTR 
>\eTABLE
>\stoptext
>
>
>Patrick
>  
>

Re: enattab example

[Peter Rolf]

Hi Patrick,

Patrick Gundlach wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I tried the first example from the natrural tables pdf (enattab.pdf),
> and my output looks very compressed. Same on live.contextgarden.net.
> Is this the way it should look like? In contrast to the output of the
> enattab.pdf file.
>

Combined columns are not taken into account when the column maxima are
calculated. You can test that by inserting something very long and
unbreakable. But it's not a very common case, that

- the content of the combined column is shorter than the sum of the
single columns *and*
- the content can't (or shouldn't) be broken

When you think about a table with several overlaping combined columns
and their width dependencies (needed blow up), then you can imagine that
it's not worth the trouble to consider these special cases. It can be
done, but I doubt that the final result looks good (and in the end you
have to edit the width values by hand). But maybe I'm wrong with this
assumption.

Greetings, Peter

> \starttext
> \bTABLE
> \bTR \bTD[nr=3] 1 \eTD \bTD[nc=2] 2/3 \eTD \bTD[nr=3] 4 \eTD \eTR 
> \bTR \bTD 2 \eTD \bTD 3 \eTD \eTR 
> \bTR \bTD 2 \eTD \bTD 3 \eTD \eTR 
> \bTR \bTD[nc=3] 1/2/3 \eTD \bTD 4 \eTD \eTR 
> \bTR \bTD 1 \eTD \bTD 2 \eTD \bTD 3 \eTD \bTD 4 \eTD \eTR 
> \eTABLE
> \stoptext
> 
> 
> Patrick