Now that we have fo-patch-for-fop.xsl (Thanks Norm!) I tried running a
recent document through a customized stylesheet. Transforming the
document with the 1.48 stylesheets worked fine (of course) but when I
ran it through fo-patch-for-fop.xsl, I got:
xsltproc --catalogs -o /tmp/147852.fo \
/proj/xml/nwalsh/docbook-xsl-1.48/fo/fo-patch-for-fop.xsl /tmp/14785.fo
runtime error: file /proj/xml/nwalsh/docbook-xsl-1.48/fo/fo-patch-for-fop.xsl line 9
element element
xsl:element : no namespace bound to prefix fox
runtime error: file /proj/xml/nwalsh/docbook-xsl-1.48/fo/fo-patch-for-fop.xsl line 9
element element
xsl:element : no namespace bound to prefix fox
runtime error: file /proj/xml/nwalsh/docbook-xsl-1.48/fo/fo-patch-for-fop.xsl line 9
element element
xsl:element : no namespace bound to prefix fox
...
In my customization layer, I turned on the fop extensions like so:
<xsl:param name="use.extensions" select="'1'"/>
<xsl:param name="fop.extensions" select="1"/>
The fop extensions use the fox: prefix, so this was the cause of the messages.
To work around this, I added the "Fop extensions" namespace to the top of
fo-patch-for-fop.xsl like so:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<xsl:stylesheet xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform";
xmlns:fo="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Format";
xmlns:fox="http://xml.apache.org/fop/extensions";
version="1.0">
I'm not sure if it's the right thing to do (fop produced the same output
either way, since my article's not actually producing any thumbnails).
However, if it should be fixed in some other fashion, I'll take
suggestions. :-)
m@
(another one for whom "fop 0.20.2
doesn't work...at all" :-))
[EMAIL PROTECTED]+- I was chasin' a ghost pale and white-----------+
| Matt Braun -- Motorola | and hard to see; The boys in blue from |
|Urbana-Champaign Design Ctr| Peculiar School are hangin' out in the dark |
+Cellular Subscriber Sector-+--- and they're lookin' for me. ------------[SR]-+
