Thanx Keiron
I solved the problem - the FopServlet with xsl and xml arguments does not
work in IE5.X - its the old problem with IE paying attention only to file
extensions.  The solution is to add the suffix "a=b.pdf" to the URL that
invokes FopServlet.

TJ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keiron Liddle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 3:35 AM
Subject: Re: FopServlet question


> Hi,
>
> Lets consider what this problem could be:
> - you are getting a transform error when using xml and xslt (stylesheet
> error)
> - the files from the distribution also have the problem
> - the files in the distribution work in the distribution
> - your file probably also work on the command line
> - the FopServlet works (I have tested it)
>
> This immediately tells us the it is a problem with the environment. What
> is different? You are running in a servlet. What libraries does the
> servlet use to run? I'm sure it is using an xml parser and possibly an
> xslt processor.
>
> So fix your classpath, ie. remove old/incompatible versions of xml
> libararies. (Note: jdk1.4 includes an xml parser)
>
> On 2002.03.02 04:08 TJ Smith wrote:
> > Hello
> > The xsl and xml files are rather huge and most likely would not be
> > welcomed
> > with open arms by the group :-)  I have attached relevant bits of both
> > files
> > and the error walkback from executing FopServlet below.  I have also
> > tried
> > the FopPrintServlet with identical results viz. works fine with 'fo'
> > parameter, squawks about "stylesheet requires attribute: version' if
> > invoked
> > with 'xml' and 'xsl' parameters.  I tried using xsl and xml files from
> > the
> > fop 20.3 distribution - and they produced the same disappointing
results.
> >  I
> > have recompiled both servlets without error - and have the jar files
that
> > came with fop 20.3 in the path.  This is making me crazy - crazier,
> > actually
> > :-) - so any and all advice is appreciated!
> >
> > Note that I did have the XSLT and FO namespaces in he stylesheet  - but
> > thanks for the suggestion :-)
>


Reply via email to