OK - I'm nearly there. The RTF almost looks exactly how I want it to. The only thing now is a table cell which need to be certain height is shrunk to one line.
I've discovered which RTF markup I could use to achieve the desired result - but the FOP process is escaping it all... Is there any way of switching that particular feature off? On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Looking at the source code it appears as if only the "height" on > fo:table-row is inspected. The right property would actually be > "block-progression-dimension" since "height" is mapped to > "block-progression-dimension", but that's the way it looks right now. > I haven't run any tests, but you might want to try specifying the height > on the parent table-row of a cell. If that doesn't help you'll need to > dive into the RTF spec and the FOP source code. The RTF command to look > up is "trrh". > > On 15.07.2008 12:38:42 Paul Hunnisett wrote: > > OK - this is almost looking how I want it to after playing around with > > tables and I've upgraded to 0.95 as well. > > > > However, I'm still havign one problem with inserting whitespace into the > RTF > > - specifically, line breaks. I have empty table cells that need to be a > > certian height, but they are displayed in the RTF reduced down to one > line > > high. > > > > Does anyone know how I can resolve/workaround this? > > > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Paul Hunnisett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > Brilliant - thanks, I'll give that a go... > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> 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 > > >> > > > > Jeremias Maerki > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
