If you change the list to a table and use absolute values for column-width in the table you should be fine. The latter problem has been fixed recently in the 0.95 branch: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xmlgraphics/fop/branches/fop-0_95
HTH On 09.07.2008 16:31:28 Paul Hunnisett wrote: > I've tried attaching the fo again. > > All I want to do is a simple document. It has some text, a simple list and > a simple table. At present I have no option other than RTF - unless I go > back and say that it can't be done... > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Actually, you forgot to attach the FO file (or it got stripped at some > > point). Anyway, I can only point you to: > > http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/0.95/output.html#rtf > > I've already updated the documentation on the RTF limitations a few days > > ago, but those updates aren't live, yet. Just to replicate the > > information here: > > These are some known restrictions compared to other supported output > > formats (not a complete list): > > > > * Not supported/implemented: > > o break-before/after (supported by the RTF library but not tied > > into the RTFHandler) > > o fo:page-number-citation-last > > o keeps (supported by the RTF library but not tied into the > > RTFHandler) > > o region-start/end (RTF limitation) > > o multiple columns > > * Only a single page-master is supported > > * Not all variations of fo:leader are supported (RTF limitation) > > * percentages are not supported everywhere > > > > Depending on what you're trying to do tweaking the FO won't help you. > > Even "tweaking the Java code" ;-) might not help as many FO features > > cannot be mapped to RTF. Basically, I don't recommend RTF production for > > anything else than relatively simple documents. The limitations are too > > severe. > > > > On 09.07.2008 15:09:50 Paul Hunnisett wrote: > > > I've written an FO document that I need to convert into and RTF file. It > > > comes through the transform all messed up looking (sorry - best > > > description!). If I transform it into a PDF then it looks perfect, but > > the > > > RTF looks awful. > > > > > > I've attached the original fo, the PDF and the RTF output so that you can > > > see what I'm aiming for and what I'm getting... > > > > > > I'm assuming the problem is to do with fo features not supported in the > > RTF > > > transform. Is anyone aware of a way that I can tweak my fo to get the > > > desired results in a way that will work? > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Paul Hunnisett > > > > > > > > > > Jeremias Maerki > > > > Jeremias Maerki --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
