On 2015-07-24 Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:

> I tried that one indeed, and noticed it still has misalignments, albeit
> very minor. Overall, the alignment does look a bit better than before
> the patch and quite a lot better than the originally attached PDF from
> 8 years ago, but still not entirely OK. I just attached both outputs in
> JIRA, so you can have a look if you're interested.

We are almost there :-)
> Unfortunately, the original reporter did not take the time to reduce
> the example to a 'minimal' one. 
>  ...
> which makes it more difficult to pinpoint the cause.

I am willing to reduce it a bit, but all next week I won't have an access to
my PC.
> One notable difference with your attachment is that instead of
> absolute, resolved page numbers, that example uses fo:page-number-
> citation, so it could be related to those. Another possibility is that
> the list structure is causing interference. Difficult to say at this
> point.

I remember there is another justification issue, even with a patch:

But I suppose there is no nbsp character in the original test case so it has
to be something else.


Reply via email to