Drats. I played with the fo after attaching it and before sending. The commented-out region-before lines are the ones which cause the problem.
On 07/14/2011 09:51 PM, Rob Sargent wrote: > Call off the hounds, I've found the root cause. I still think it's > quite interesting how the two version deal with the situation so > differently. > > > As I said there are two flows (or more correctly? page-sequences). The > definition of the region-before in the first sequence is more specific > in it's dimensions. Here a left-hand page definition for this sequence: > <fo:simple-page-master margin-bottom="0.6in" margin-top="0in" > page-height="11in" page-width="8.5in" master-name="rest-even"> > <fo:region-body margin-left="0.0in" margin-right="0.833in" > margin-bottom="0.7in" margin-top="0.66in" column-gap="0.25in" > column-count="2" /> > <fo:region-before margin-top="5mm" margin-left="0.75in" > margin-right="0.833in" extent="0.66in" region-name="header-rest" /> > <fo:region-start extent="0.75in" region-name="sidebar-left" /> > </fo:simple-page-master> > > where as the second sequence used region-before definitions like this: > <fo:simple-page-master page-width="8.5in" page-height="11in" > margin="0in 0.833in 0in 0in" master-name="leftimages"> > <fo:region-body margin-left="0.75in" margin-top="0.66in" > margin-bottom="0.6in" column-gap="0.25in" column-count="2" /> > <fo:region-before margin-left="0.0in" overflow="hidden" > region-name="header-images" extent="0.66in" /> > <fo:region-after region-name="footer-images" extent="0.7in" /> > <fo:region-start extent="0.75in" region-name="sidebar-left" /> > </fo:simple-page-master> > > I suspect the main culprit is the 'margin-left="0.0"'. > > This made 0.83 inches of the LEFT side of the single celled table > simply disappear. One could cover the region-before with a background > colour and see the background where there should have been the title > cell. Running v-1.0 with-d produces nicer information than 0.95 and > that helped but 0.95 was more lenient (and that helped ;) ) > > > > Rob Sargent wrote: >> Understood. It'll take some work to trim the fo, since our documents >> are so heavily populated with medical images. Hence I wanted to be >> sure this wasn't a known issue. I'll be on vacation next week so >> don't wait up for me. :) >> >> Cheers, >> >> rjs >> >> Andreas L. Delmelle wrote: >>> On 14 Jul 2011, at 05:58, Rob Sargent wrote: >>> >>> Hi Rob >>> >>>> Is this by any chance a know bug in version 1.0? >>> >>> Searching for open issues in Bugzilla that contain both "table" and >>> "region-before" yielded no results. >>> So, I would assume that, if it is a bug, it is not a known one (or >>> already fixed in trunk --didn't search the closed bugs). >>> >>> At any rate, sorry to keep repeating this, but... it is difficult >>> --not to say: virtually impossible- to say more without the actual >>> FO file. Preferably, if not too time-consuming, trimmed down to the >>> smallest FO that shows the issue. Is it possible to post something >>> like that here? If you can't because it contains confidential info, >>> you can send it to me off-list if that works for you. >>> >>>> I place a single row table, single cell table in the region before. In >>>> version 0.95 the table, which has background set to "silver" renders >>>> perfectly, spanning the entire region-before. Using versions 1.0, the >>>> left ~0.83 inches of the table are obliterated. The text is centered >>>> properly as if the cell spanned the region width. >>> >>> .83in is almost 60pt, 'roughly' .83in could be exactly that. Perhaps >>> this gives a clue? Is there some margin/indent specified as 60pt? If >>> you specify a border on the table, does that disappear on the left >>> as well? >>> >>>> I've tried placing the entire table in a block-container to no avail. >>>> >>>> Weirder still is that only in one flow, (the second of two) does the >>>> truncation appear. Both flows use the same template to define the >>>> table. >>>> >>>> The two fo files are identical (according to emacs's ediff). Is that >>>> believable? >>> >>> While that seems strange, I would not rule it out without having >>> taken a closer look. >>> >>> >>> KR >>> >>> Andreas >>> --- >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscr...@xmlgraphics.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-h...@xmlgraphics.apache.org >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscr...@xmlgraphics.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-h...@xmlgraphics.apache.org
