Hi, 2016-01-19 17:50 GMT+01:00 <[email protected]>: > Thanks for the pointer! That was what I was looking for. > > So it seems that the config file MUST reside WITH the FO file, in the same > directory. But only IF base is used in the config file?
No, the config file can be put in any location you want. You just have to indicate its URI. > If the base parameter is not used in the config, every relative URI is > relative to the FO file's location? Do I understand that correctly? Yes > In a message dated 1/19/2016 1:31:20 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > > Hi, > there is a big change between FOP 1.x and FOP 2.x regarding the base: > 1.x: base defaults to FOP uri > 2.x: base defaults to FO uri > > See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOP-2306 > > 2016-01-19 1:21 GMT+01:00 <[email protected]>: >> All, >> Thanks to Tosten who made me think hard ;-) >> >> It turns that the FOP config file parameter <base> is the issue. Like >> Torsten mentioned, the base parameter appears to be an absolute path now >> in >> FOP 2.1. However, this is not a good option for an existing system that >> supports many projects and various paths. My base was set as: >> <base>./</base> >> >> When I set it to an absolute path for testing, FOP 2.1 found all of the >> files. However, when I REMOVED it, allowing to go to it's default setting >> (current directory), everything ran normally and files were located >> correctly. >> >> So for my situation, removing the <base> parameter works on FOP 2.1, and >> it >> also works on FOP 1.1. I do believe that there is a bug in that section of >> the 2.1 code. >> >> Thanks to everyone that helped out! >> >> Regards, >> Dean Nelson >> >> In a message dated 1/18/2016 8:16:34 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, >> [email protected] writes: >> >> Dean, >> >> yes, I did this in our docbook xsl configuration layer via changing >> admin.graphics.path. You may also want to set img.src.path. >> >> Hope this helps, >> >> Torsten >> >> >> On 18.01.2016 17:04, [email protected] wrote: >>> Torsten >>> Did you do this via XSL? Or could you describe how you did this? >>> Thanks >>> Dean >>> In a message dated 1/18/2016 6:12:37 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, >>> [email protected] writes: >>> >>> Hi Dean, >>> >>> I made the same experience recently, attempting a similar port from >>> Fop >>> 1.1 to Fop 2.1 of our DocBook documents. >>> >>> Apparently, Fop 2.1 seems to be more strict about the format of the >>> url >>> argument. I managed to resolve this by converting image references to >>> absolute file URIs (e.g. file:///<path>/images/). I was not able to >>> use >>> a relative path and folded. >>> >>> Luckily, in my case mostly admonition graphics were affected, which I >>> could resolve by specifying an absolute admon.graphics.path. >>> >>> Hope this helps, >>> >>> Torsten >>> >>> On 17.01.2016 02:29, [email protected] wrote: >>> > Hello! >>> > Thanks for everyone's hard work on the FOP 2.1 release! >>> > I have a stable Docbook system with FOP 1.1 and when I upgraded >>> to 2.1 I >>> > noticed an issue: It appears that FOP cannot find the images in >>> the new >>> > system. >>> > [ERROR] FOUserAgent - Image not found. URI: images/redneck9.bmp. >>> (See >>> > position 15:562) >>> > Which points to this line: >>> > <fo:external-graphic src="url(images/redneck9.bmp)" width="7cm" >>> > height="auto" content-width="scale-to-fit" >>> content-height="scale-to-fit" >>> > content-type="content-type:image/BMP" text-align="center"/> >>> > This is exactly the same file that FOP 1.1 processes just fine and >>> I >>> > looked to see if there were any changes in the way I needed to >>> run FOP >>> > but I could not see anything related to that. >>> > Was there a change for FOP 2.1 that would cause this? >>> > Thanks >>> > Dean Nelson -- pascal --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
