| -----Original Message-----
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
| Of John Maddock
| Sent: 02 October 2006 09:52
| To: Boost documentation format, structure, and processing discussion
| Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] Table titles not in PDF?
|
| Eric Niebler wrote:
| > John, I think you're blazing a trail here. Nobody else is using the
| > fop-0.9x stuff, or the docbook-xsl snapshots, AFAIK. When I saw how
| > broken the output was, I gave up on it. Is there some reason you're
| > using the unstable stuff, instead of the older, more stable
| > fop/docbook-xsl combination recommended by the BoostBook docs?
|
| Actually I've been experimenting with both:
|
| * I'm not seeing table titles from either, though I'll
| double check that
| this isn't related to the bleeding-edge stylesheets (OK done
| it makes no
| odds which stylesheets I use).
| * The FOP-0.9 produces a nice TOC, where as the FOP-0.25 doesn't.
| * The FOP-0.9 has a lot of broken internal hyperlinks, where
| as 0.25 is OK.
| * The images produced from .png's are much much better in
| FOP-0.9 than in
| 0.25 - unless someones knows how I can persuade 0.25 to
| interpret the images
| at other than 72dpi.
| * The PDF file sizes from 0.9 are way larger than 0.25 -
| 10Mb compared to
| 600K !!! I believe this is due to lack of image compression
| in 0.9. This
| one is currently the killer for me.
|
| John.
I've also noted that date of last update is missing - a VERY useful feature.
(And the notes admit that document properties like author and title etc are
also missing - but can be added using Adode Acrobat (not Reader). THis
might allow use to manually copy this info, a nuisance but better than
nothing).
I can't see any mention of the increasing file size caused by the graphics
either.
NHowever the table titles seem OK to me. For eexample
The procedure then prints out the results of the various tests that can be
done, these can be summarised in the following sample table(crudely pasted
in):
Hypothesis Test Code
<<<
The Null-hypothesis: there is no difference
in means
complement of CDF for |t| > confidence
level / 2
cdf(complement(dist,
fabs(t))) > alpha
BUT some of the CODE fields overflow BOTH the table fields AND the page
width.
(I am using the latest Adobe Acrobat Reader 7.0)
So better than nothing but not quite fully debugged yet :-((
(Finally I note there is a 0.92 release - John has used 0.91).
Paul
---
Paul A Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB
+44 1539561830 & SMS, Mobile +44 7714 330204 & SMS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Boost-docs mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe and other administrative requests:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
