DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37877>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37877 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-12-14 15:17 ------- (In reply to comment #6) > No, no stretching here with FOP Trunk. I'll try again tomorrow with fresh > energy. Please try also with <resolution>96</resolution> in FOP config. After that FOP gives me broken PDF at all.. with 72 images are stretched vertically. I have no idea maybe AbstractGraphics2D scale causing that or ... no clue ;) Tell me what is default resolution anyway if I don't set <resolution> in config ? > If I set the uaResolution to 96 in > org.apache.fop.render.pdf.PDFSVGHandler.renderSVGDocument() then the SVG > doesn't > get clipped. PDF normally uses 72dpi. That and the fact that the SVG doesn't > use > a viewBox is the reason that the sizes differ. As I learned from Thomas > DeWeese, > having an SVG without a viewBox asks for trouble. In this case here the > viewBox > should be: viewBox="0 0 400 350" Or even smaller when looking at one set with viewBox="0 0 400 350" the page is too big comparing one visible on Inkscape. When I use Batik Squiggle it reports viewbox as "0 0 384 336" which is more like one in Inkscape... maybe we can use same method as it seems to be more acurate for SVG files without viewBox. It is also Inkscape fault coz there is no way to force it to generate viewBox. Have you been using Inkscape or you do SVG samples by hand ? -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
