Hello all, First, I want to say that I am very happy that fop-0.92 is moving along. Thanks for moving forward with this. In general, docs run through the new FOP look much nicer -- vertical & horizontal spacing looks better, keep-with-next seems to be working well, etc. This is great!
Recently I've run into a strange issue with <fo:page-number-citation> -- it works fine with fop-0.20, but the output is incorrect in fop-0.92. Here's a snippet that illustrates the problem. Originally this FO came from running Docbook through FOP, with the option to generate page numbers for links turned on. I've tried to remove most of the Docbook cruft, but I know almost nothing about FO, so please bear with me. :) <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <fo:root xmlns:fo="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Format";> <fo:layout-master-set> <fo:simple-page-master master-name="body-first" page-width="8.5in" page-height="11in" margin-top="0.5in" margin-bottom="0.5in" margin-left="1in - 0pt" margin-right="1in"> <fo:region-body margin-bottom="0.5in" margin-top="0.5in" column-gap="12pt" column-count="1"/> </fo:simple-page-master> <fo:page-sequence-master master-name="body"> <fo:repeatable-page-master-alternatives> <fo:conditional-page-master-reference master-reference="body-first" page-position="first"/> </fo:repeatable-page-master-alternatives> </fo:page-sequence-master> </fo:layout-master-set> <fo:page-sequence master-reference="body"> <fo:flow flow-name="xsl-region-body"> <fo:block id="thispara">This is a <fo:basic-link internal-destination="thispara">link</fo:basic-link><fo:basic-link internal-destination="thispara"> [<fo:page-number-citation ref-id="thispara"/>]</fo:basic-link> that goes to this very paragraph.</fo:block> </fo:flow> </fo:page-sequence> </fo:root> If you run this through fop-0.20, you get This is a link [1] that goes to this very paragraph. If you run this through fop-0.92, you get This is a link [1] that goes to this very paragraph. Any thoughts about what's going on? (Note: The problem becomes worse if the page number is two digits, because the "]" starts to overlay the second digit. I can provide screenshots of that, if necessary, but I think the snippet above points out that *something* weird is going on.) Thanks for taking a look, Evan __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
