On 01/11/2011 11:46 AM, Andreas Delmelle wrote: > On 11 Jan 2011, at 19:31, Rob Sargent wrote: > > >> My apologies for the size of the fo file. If I knew where the problem >> was in particular I certain would have trimmed it. >> > OK, no harm done. > > >> I'll follow-up on your suggestions, for which I am most thankful. >> I sent the whole thing since there are pdf differences on "most" >> of the right hand pages, all of which printed nicely under 0.95. >> > If you can be more specific, don't hold back. Quite some time and commits > passed between 0.95 and 1.0, so I cannot exclude the possibility that there > are regressions among those differences. The more accurate you can tell what > appears wrong, the better we will be able to judge whether they are genuine > bugs or just 'natural' (and in XSL-FO, the latter is at times > counter-intuitive...). > > > Regards, > > Andreas > --- > > Once I nail the culprit (table size calculation or what ever) I'll try to report back the difference.
Stay tuned (patiently :) ) > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
