scott hutinger wrote: > I'll create a new issue and have it related to XSTL PDF output. > scott
sounds good! -jean > Jean T. Anderson wrote: > >> Hi, Scott, >> >> does this fit the DERBY-2237 copyright cleanups? that might be a good >> issue to attach the patch to. Either that or create a new issue. >> >> regarding DERBY-2237, I lost track of dita2fo-shell-copyr1.diff.gz . >> Sorry! Was that still a good patch for the PDFs? or does your new patch >> also change PDFs? >> >> thanks, >> >> -jean >> >> scott hutinger wrote: >> >> >>> I'm not certain if I should create a new issue for this or not. >>> >>> What this does is modify the dita2fo-shell.xsl to add: >>> - copyright information on the cover page above the timestamp >>> - remove the copyright on the header of the body pages, and replace it >>> with the name of the document. >>> - The table of contents header has both the version number and the >>> document name on it. >>> >>> A couple other things. I tried fop .93 and DITA-OT1.3.1. fop.93 in >>> different builds together on separately. Fop.93 changes some layout and >>> looses the table of contents, probably some other items. This more than >>> likely would take a bit of time to figure out the differences and how to >>> fix them. As for DITA-OT1.3.1; my first impression is it's probably >>> best to do a diff with 1.2.x and 1.3.x then goto differences between >>> 1.2.x and the current files that modify the output. I did a direct diff >>> using meld (visual difference) from 1.3.x and the current files. I >>> wasn't certain that it was worth the time, but that was before doing >>> mods to get the header with the document name. >>> >>> XSLT has some strange side effects; one of them being $booktitle. I >>> didn't debug, just guessed :-) >>> >>> The patch was made within the lib directory, so cd lib; patch -p0 < >>> header1.patch >>> >>> Anyway, Jean might be the one to tell me what to do...(new issue or >>> not). I added this as an attachment, just in case anyone was interested >>> (or not...). I'll do a new issue or use the old one that was hijacked >>> if best, and add the diff to it also. >>> scott >>> > >
