Sorry, but that's not how it works. You can't just put RTF markup in
your FO and expect that to properly show up in RTF files. FOP has to
support all sorts of different output formats. And hacking in something
like that is certainly not the way to go. This has to do be done by
improving the RTF handler in FOP.
On 23.07.2008 16:48:27 Paul Hunnisett wrote:
> What I mean by 'escaping' is that if I put the following in my fo:
>
> <fo:block ...>
>
> { \line \line \line \line \line \line \line \line \line \line \line \line
> \line }
> </fo:block>
> Which is just some RTF markup, is output as:
>
> \{ \\ line \\ line \\ line \\ line \\ line \\ line \\ line \\ line \\ line
> \\ line \\ line \\ line \\ line \}
>
> Where the RTF markup is being escaped and I am seeing the \line s as text in
> my output...
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
Jeremias Maerki
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
