What do you mean by "escaping" it? If you open a bugzilla issue and attach your current patch I'm happy to review it for you and to provide tips.
On 23.07.2008 16:16:24 Paul Hunnisett wrote: > 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 > > > > Jeremias Maerki --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
