Re: Processing Feedback: Notification for Missing Font

2013-08-23 Thread Akshay
Vincent Hennebert vincent.hennebert at anyware-tech.com writes: Jeremias Maerki wrote: Hmm, I cannot reproduce that. The command-line mentions missing fonts to me. I don't expect differences between the font substitution warning and the auto table warning.

Processing Feedback: Notification for Missing Font

2008-04-18 Thread Vincent Hennebert
Jeremias, When I specify an unknown font family in my FO file and launch FOP with the command line it no longer warns me that the font was substituted with “any,normal,400”. Is that to be expected? I get the other warnings (auto table layout unsupported, for example) as usual, though. Thanks,

Re: Processing Feedback: Notification for Missing Font

2008-04-18 Thread Jeremias Maerki
Hmm, I cannot reproduce that. The command-line mentions missing fonts to me. I don't expect differences between the font substitution warning and the auto table warning. C:\Dev\FOP\main\trunk-cleanfop -fo helloworld.fo -pdf out.pdf 18.04.2008 11:24:13 org.apache.fop.events.LoggingEventListener

Re: Processing Feedback: Notification for Missing Font

2008-04-18 Thread Vincent Hennebert
Jeremias Maerki wrote: Hmm, I cannot reproduce that. The command-line mentions missing fonts to me. I don't expect differences between the font substitution warning and the auto table warning. C:\Dev\FOP\main\trunk-cleanfop -fo helloworld.fo -pdf out.pdf 18.04.2008 11:24:13

Re: Processing Feedback: Notification for Missing Font

2008-04-18 Thread Jeremias Maerki
Thanks, that helped identify the problem. Now fixed: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=649477view=rev On 18.04.2008 13:18:53 Vincent Hennebert wrote: Jeremias Maerki wrote: Hmm, I cannot reproduce that. The command-line mentions missing fonts to me. I don't expect differences between the font

Re: Processing Feedback: Notification for Missing Font

2008-04-18 Thread Vincent Hennebert
There’s another problem: the missing glyph message is displayed twice for every missing glyph. This isn’t the case with FOP 0.95beta. Vincent Jeremias Maerki wrote: Thanks, that helped identify the problem. Now fixed: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=649477view=rev On 18.04.2008 13:18:53