cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Community Tip - Need help navigating or using the PTC Community? Contact the community team. X

6.0 m010 upgrade: some generated tables not breaking

naglists
1-Newbie

6.0 m010 upgrade: some generated tables not breaking

Still trying to chase down differences between those that do, those that
don't, but was wondering in advance if anyone saw/fixed tables, generated
or otherwise, that broke just fine before an upgrade to 6.0.

--
Paul Nagai
6 REPLIES 6

FOSI, by the by.

We upgraded from 5.2 to 6.0 and we noticed that some tables used to begin near the bottom of a page in 5.2 and only show a row or two at the bottom of that page. In 6.0 they now begin on the next page.

I have seen a little of that, too. Not chasing that one yet.

something about my generated table theads are upsetting 6.0.

I updated my e-i-c for entry to include the rotate support.
<entry rotate="1">
1 = 90 degrees
2, 180
3, 270

Which lets me remove some tex hacks in the generated table headers.

I am still testing, but it looks like in the thead e-i-c
is not working. Weird.


I'm also losing the bottom rule on the not-last page of a table that
breaks. (I'm sure there is better English to describe that.)

I know some folks think that's proper (and I like the cue it provides) but
I'm pretty sure my authors, at least some of them, aren't going to like it.

Hi Paul,


I haven't noticed any differences with our table breaks, we've just started our 6.0 regression testing. We are using FOSI so I'll let you know if I see anything like that.


I may have some insight to your not-last-page-bottom-rule table issue (I think I used worse english than you to describe it). We use the following definitions in a custom.tmx file in the custom\inputs folder:


\TableSplitPreBrk=0 % -1=none, 0=solid, 1=dotted, 2=dashed
\TableSplitPostBrk=0 % -1=none, 0=solid, 1=dotted, 2=dashed
\TableRulePreBrk=1 % 0=none, 1=previous row rule, 2=first table rule
\TableRulePostBrk=1 % 0=none, 1=previous row rule, 2=first table rule


Everything after the % in each line is a comment (so I can remember which value means what). Those definitions preventour tables from having that "empty bottom" when they break across a page. This is workingin our 6.0 environment (worked in 5.3 and 5.4 for us as well).


Hope that helps.


-Brett

In Reply to Paul Nagai:


I'm also losing the bottom rule on the not-last page of a table that
breaks. (I'm sure there is better English to describe that.)

I know some folks think that's proper (and I like the cue it provides) but
I'm pretty sure my authors, at least some of them, aren't going to like it.

Thanks, Brett. I've got a .tmx file that does something fun but I don't
remember what that we've been dragging around for several versions. I'll
give those a whirl.

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 7:51 AM, Brett McCorkle <
brett.mccorkle@erieinsurance.com> wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>
> I haven't noticed any differences with our table breaks, we've just
> started our 6.0 regression testing. We are using FOSI so I'll let you know
> if I see anything like that.
>
> I may have some insight to your not-last-page-bottom-rule table issue (I
> think I used worse english than you to describe it). We use the following
> definitions in a custom.tmx file in the custom\inputs folder:
>
> \TableSplitPreBrk=0 % -1=none, 0=solid, 1=dotted, 2=dashed
> \TableSplitPostBrk=0 % -1=none, 0=solid, 1=dotted, 2=dashed
> \TableRulePreBrk=1 % 0=none, 1=previous row rule, 2=first table rule
> \TableRulePostBrk=1 % 0=none, 1=previous row rule, 2=first table rule
>
> Everything after the % in each line is a comment (so I can remember which
> value means what). Those definitions prevent our tables from having that
> "empty bottom" when they break across a page. This is working in our 6.0
> environment (worked in 5.3 and 5.4 for us as well).
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> -Brett
>
> In Reply to Paul Nagai:
>
> I'm also losing the bottom rule on the not-last page of a table that
> breaks. (I'm sure there is better English to describe that.)
>
> I know some folks think that's proper (and I like the cue it provides) but
> I'm pretty sure my authors, at least some of them, aren't going to like it.
>
>
Top Tags