Automatic Minimal-Height Table Layout

References

• Anderson RJ, Sobti S (1999) The table layout problem. SCG ’99: Proc. Fifteenth Annual Sympos. Comput. Geometry (ACM Press, New York), 115–123.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Badros GJ, Borning A, Marriott K, Stuckey P (1999) Constraint cascading style sheets for the web. Proc. 1999 ACM Conf. User Interface Software Tech. (ACM, New York), 73–82.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Beach RJ (1985) Setting tables and illustrations with style. Ph.D. thesis, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
• Beaumont N (2004) Fitting a table to a page using non-linear optimization. Asia-Pacific J. Oper. Res. 21:259–270.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bilauca M, Healy P (2010) A new model for automated table layout. Proc. 10th ACM Sympos. Document Engrg. DocEng ’10 (ACM, New York), 169–176.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bilauca M, Healy P (2011) Building table formatting tools. Proc. 11th ACM Sympos. Document Engrg. (ACM, New York), 13–22.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Borning A, Lin R, Marriott K (2000) Constraint-based document layout for the web. Multimedia Systems 8:177–189.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gange G, Marriott K, Moulder P, Stuckey P (2011) Optimal automatic table layout. Proc. 11th ACM Sympos. Document Engrg. (ACM, New York), 23–32.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hurst N, Li W, Marriott K (2009) Review of automatic document formatting. Proc. 9th ACM Sympos. Document Engrg. (ACM, New York), 99–108.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hurst N, Marriott K, Albrecht D (2006) Solving the simple continuous table layout problem. DocEng ’06: Proc. 2006 ACM Sympos. Document Engrg. (ACM, New York), 28–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hurst N, Marriott K, Moulder P (2005) Towards tighter tables. Proc. Document Engrg. 2005 (ACM, New York), 74–83.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kafka F (2005) The Trial. Project Gutenberg e-book (Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, Salt Lake City, UT).Google Scholar
• Lin X (2006) Active layout engine: Algorithms and applications in variable data printing. Comput.-Aided Design 38:444–456.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lutteroth C, Weber G (2006) User interface layout with ordinal and linear constraints. AUIC ’06: Proc. 7th Australasian User Interface Conf. (Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia), 53–60.Google Scholar
• Marriott K, Stuckey P (1998) Programming with Constraints: An Introduction (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marriott K, Moulder P, Hurst N (2013) HTML automatic table layout. ACM Trans. Web 7(1):Article no. 4.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moskewicz MW, Madigan CF, Zhao Y, Zhang L, Malik S (2001) Chaff: Engineering an efficient SAT solver. DAC ’01: Proc. 38th Conf. Design Automation (ACM, New York), 530–535.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Murtagh BA, Saunders MA (1978) Large-scale linearly constrained optimization. Math. Programming 14(1):41–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• NICTA (2010) MiniZinc: Challenge 2010 results. Accessed November 2013, http://www.minizinc.org/challenge2010/results2010.html.Google Scholar
• Ohrimenko O, Stuckey PJ, Codish M (2009) Propagation via lazy clause generation. Constraints 14:357–391.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Raggett D, Hors AL, Jacobs I (1999) HTML 4.01 Specification, section ‘Autolayout Algorithm’. Accessed November 2013, http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/appendix/notes.html.Google Scholar
• Wang X, Wood D (1997) Tabular formatting problems. Nicholas C, Wood D, eds. PODP ’96: Proc. Third Internat. Workshop on Principles of Document Processing (Springer-Verlag, Berlin),171–181.Crossref, Google Scholar