Rob, Thanks. That's exactly the sort of thing I was concerned about. I've had a quick look around and seen nothing, so it might be better for now to put it on hold, and mention the work-around and its possible consequences in the release notes. Anyone else have any other ideas?
Peter Rob Smith wrote: >>What's the latest? I have just patched .../fo/flow/BasicLink.java to >>change the default, but I have not committed it yet. I would like to >>get an interested user to try it before general release, if possible. > > > There is a rather odd bug that showed up when I set -Dlinks.merge=yes on the > command line. The following FO: > > <fo:block text-align-last="justify" end-indent="24pt"> > <fo:inline keep-with-next.within-line="always"> > <fo:basic-link internal-destination="id469899">1. > Introduction</fo:basic-link> > </fo:inline> > <fo:inline keep-together.within-line="always"> > <fo:leader leader-pattern="dots" keep-with-next.within-line="always"/> > <fo:basic-link internal-destination="id469899"> > <fo:page-number-citation ref-id="id469899"/> > </fo:basic-link> > </fo:inline> > </fo:block> > > caused FOP to report: > [ERROR]: 0 >= 0 > > The FO comes from a Docbook stylesheet, and is part of the table of contents > (actually most Docbook+FOP users won't get this error because Docbook > produces a different TOC format without leaders if the "fop.extensions" > parameter is set to "1"). > > The problem seems to be due to the sequence (basic-link leader basic-link) > in a justified block. Removing any one of these fixes it, as does making the > whole line a single basic-link. > > Trouble is, changing the links.merge default could break some documents with > a very obscure error message. -- Peter B. West [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://powerup.com.au/~pbwest "Lord, to whom shall we go?" --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
