Here I lost you. I thought you referred to the fact that the line
distance in the trunk version is always larger than in the maintenance
version, even while the nominal line height is the same. That seems to
be due to the fact that the trunk version makes more room for the
descenders of the font (quantity follow?).

Now it seems you only refer to the ToC in the Nils' demo file.

Regards, Simon

On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 09:56:38PM +0200, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> Found it myself. It's the page-number and page-number-citation LMs which
> cause bigger boxes than normal text. Test added, trying to fix it.
> On 29.06.2005 18:26:26 Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> > I'm trying to track this down but I get nowhere. At first, I thought it
> > was the default for line-height which is 1.2em for both FOP Trunk and
> > 0.20.5. Still, in Nils' example the document is much more compact in
> > 0.20.5 than in the trunk.
> > 
> > When I dial down the default for line-height in the trunk the result
> > gets better but I'm pretty sure that's the wrong approach.
> > 
> > Does anyone else have an idea? My bag-o-ideas is soon empty.
> > 
> > On 29.06.2005 09:12:28 bugzilla wrote:
> > > BTW, Nils' example shows again that we have another point to attend to: 
> > > Our 
> > > current nominal text box is much bigger than it was for 0.20.5. I've seen 
> > > this 
> > > before and I think we're approaching the time when this needs to be fixed.
> > 
> > Jeremias Maerki
> Jeremias Maerki

Simon Pepping
home page:

Reply via email to