Re: [docbook-apps] row's height

2014-02-04 Thread Matteo Regazzo
Yes, I've already watched last time, but I had not reported it to you, sorry. I ever find fo:table-row block-progression-dimension.minimum=14pt, but the instruction should write 2cm. I'll check the XSL conversion... thank you, Matteo Il 03/02/2014 18:09, Bob Stayton ha scritto: Hi Matteo,

Re: [docbook-apps] row's height

2014-02-03 Thread Bob Stayton
Hi Matteo, Can you peek into the .fo file and see if the fo:table-row elements have the block-progression-dimension attribute with the values you specify? If so, then the fault is with the FO processor (although FOP 1.1 should work). If the attribute is absent, then the problem lies with the

Re: [docbook-apps] row's height

2014-01-31 Thread Matteo Regazzo
Hi Mr. Bob, I use: - docbook-xsl-ns version 1.78.1 (revision 9732 as reported in the REVISION file) - FOP 1.1 - SAXON 6.5.5 Matteo the stylesheets version I'm using is Il 28/01/2014 17:51, Bob Stayton ha scritto: Hi Matteo, Yes, you are using it correctly. I copied and pasted your sample

Re: [docbook-apps] row's height

2014-01-28 Thread Matteo Regazzo
Thank you Mr. Bob, if I suppose correctly, the command you've suggested me is a forcing of the single row's height, that's exactly what I need. Maybe I don't know how to make it work... I've added the instruction in my code, as it is in your example, in this way tbody row?dbfo

Re: [docbook-apps] row's height

2014-01-28 Thread Bob Stayton
Hi Matteo, Yes, you are using it correctly. I copied and pasted your sample and it works for me. In the FO output file, there are row elements that look like this: fo:table-row block-progression-dimension=2cm The block-progression-dimension property in XSL-FO is the same as height for

Re: [docbook-apps] row's height

2014-01-27 Thread Bob Stayton
I'm not completely clear on what you need here, but there are processing instructions that can be used to specify a table row height. The HTML version is described here: http://www.sagehill.net/docbookxsl/RowHeight.html And since that was written, an FO version was added as well: row?dbfo