Yeah, I know. I'm still a bit confused myself. At least the very ugly
problem in that TOC is solved. It may still be that the text looks a bit
different. I built a test file yesterday (attached!) to compare 0.20.5
and trunk and the output didn't look at all too different by now. Trunk
takes only ma
Jeremias,
Here I lost you. I thought you referred to the fact that the line
distance in the trunk version is always larger than in the maintenance
version, even while the nominal line height is the same. That seems to
be due to the fact that the trunk version makes more room for the
descenders of
Found it myself. It's the page-number and page-number-citation LMs which
cause bigger boxes than normal text. Test added, trying to fix it.
On 29.06.2005 18:26:26 Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> I'm trying to track this down but I get nowhere. At first, I thought it
> was the default for line-height whic
I'm trying to track this down but I get nowhere. At first, I thought it
was the default for line-height which is 1.2em for both FOP Trunk and
0.20.5. Still, in Nils' example the document is much more compact in
0.20.5 than in the trunk.
When I dial down the default for line-height in the trunk the
