DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUGĀ·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38433>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED ANDĀ·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38433


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |WORKSFORME




------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-02-02 16:09 -------
I remember effects like this from my time when I worked with FOP 0.20.5,
although I didn't experience such drastic differences. In my example that was
almost always due to some whitespace. Without wasting a lot of time debugging in
a branch that is not maintained anymore I can't tell you what's wrong. One part
could be the XSL-FO that you generate. In the "empty-one" template you create
empty fo:table elements which is illegal. Maybe FOP 0.20.5 doesn't like that.

I'd recommend you upgrade to the latest release (0.91beta). You will have to
clean up your stylesheet to make it work with that version (especially that
empty fo:table, use a block-container instead, place an empty fo:block in the
block-container). With FOP 0.91beta, I don't see any visual differences between
the direct approach and the way over a temporary FO file.

Good luck and sorry for the delay.

-- 
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.

Reply via email to