A good starting point:
http://thecontentwrangler.com/2008/04/11/choosing_an_xml_schema_docbook_or_dita/
A good discussion about how DITA-OT uses XSL and XSL-FO to create PDF
from DITA XML.
http://www.scriptorium.com/whitepapers/ditaotpdf/DITA-PDF-tweaks.pdf
I am trying to get the FOP side to be aware of the importance of DITA as
a standard for documentation so the FOP developers will pay some
attention to the needs for improved FOP features and perhaps give advice
to the DITA-OT developers to use FOP in the best possible way.
I am trying to get the DITA side to stop considering FOP to be a static
thing that can not be changed and to start to contribute ideas and
funding to make FOP do the things that it needs to do. I also want to
encourage the DITA-OT team to enter into discussions with the FOP
experts to make sure that DITA-OT uses FOP in the best possible way.
This problem with the leading dots is a good example of the problem.
When the problem was raised by a documentation author, one of the
leading DITA experts proposed the solution to the problem was to stop
trying to make FOP work since it is buggy and inconsistent rather than
suggesting that the user ask the question in the FOP user forum.
When I brought the problem here, an answer was provided that looks like
a simple change to DITA-OT's FOP configuration that seemed to be a
solution to this problem that is well understood here.
Ron
On 24/05/2014 9:22 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
I'm not familiar with DITA, but if a DITA product depends on FOP, then
DITA as a group or its sponsors should consider funding the work they
would like to see done in FOP. Simply asking the few developers in the
FOP project to support DITA priorities won't guarantee any results.
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 5:38 AM, Ron Wheeler
<rwhee...@artifact-software.com
<mailto:rwhee...@artifact-software.com>> wrote:
You are right , of course.
However, this very large community ( one DITA LinkedIn group has
4,600 members, the Technical Doc group has over 14,000 members)
does not see themselves as users of FOP but only as users of
DITA-OT which in turn has a dependency on FOP.
As far as I know DITA is the most popular XML language for
constructing documents and it seems odd that there is almost no
connection between the Apache efforts in XML and the biggest
potential set of users and drivers of demand for the things that
XMLGraphics is producing.
I will pass on the information to the forum where the question was
raised.
Thanks
On 23/05/2014 6:05 PM, Luis Bernardo wrote:
I think this only shows that the person is not going to the
source (i.e., the FOP user mailing list) to request help.
The example shown can be greatly improved by using
<fo:leader width="100%" leader-pattern="use-content">.</fo:leader>
instead of
<fo:leader leader-pattern="dots" />
The FOP implementation repeats 3 dots (...) when using the
leader-pattern="dots" which is not very intelligent since it can
lead to misalignment many times. But by specifying the leader
content as just one dot the result can be greatly improved,
although I agree that there is room for improvement in this feature.
On 5/23/14, 4:14 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
The conversation below shows one of the reasons why I would like to see
DITA become part of the XMLGraphics family.
One of the most experienced and influential DITA practitioners is giving
advice about the suitability of FOP for producing correct PDFs.
Ron
-----------------------------
This is an issue with the FOP XSL-FO engine (one of many).
For top-qualify PDF output you really need to license Antenna House XSL
Formatter or RenderX XEP, both of which produce excellent results. FOP
simply has too many bugs and limitations to be generally useful for
production PDF generation using XSL-FO, unfortunately.
Cheers,
XXX
On 5/23/14, 9:54 AM, yyy [dita-users]"
<dita-us...@yahoogroups.com> <mailto:dita-us...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
[Attachment(s) <#TopText> from Mark Peters included below]
Hi,
Using DITA-OT 1.7 and the default org.dita.pdf2 plugin, I notice that
some TOC entries are randomly misaligned slightly. The leader extends one
or two extra "dots."
For example (not sure if the formatting will come through correctly. An
image is also attached):
Chapter 1: RTI4T System Overview...........11
RTI System Diagram.....................................12
System Components...................................12
RTI Network Diagram...................................15
Summary of RTI Setup Tasks.......................15
Like I said, the misalignment is random. It's not all H1s or H2s, for
example, which would probably be relatively easy to fix.
Even more puzzling, the XSL-FO attributes in the temp files are identical
for nodes at the same level that have different alignments.
For example, here are two H1-level nodes. The first node is slightly
misaligned. But the indent values are identical for both nodes.
<fo:block start-indent="25pt + (1 * 30pt) + 14pt">
<fo:block end-indent="22pt" font-size="10pt"
font-weight="normal" last-line-end-indent="-22pt" text-align="justify"
text-align-last="justify" text-indent="-14pt">
<fo:basic-link
internal-destination="_OPENTOPIC_TOC_PROCESSING_d70e1310"
line-height="150%">
<fo:inline end-indent="14pt">RTI System
Diagram</fo:inline>
<fo:inline keep-together.within-line="always"
start-indent="-14pt">
<fo:leader leader-pattern="dots"/>
<fo:page-number-citation
ref-id="_OPENTOPIC_TOC_PROCESSING_d70e1310"/>
</fo:inline>
</fo:basic-link>
</fo:block>
</fo:block>
<fo:block start-indent="25pt + (1 * 30pt) + 14pt">
<fo:block end-indent="22pt" font-size="10pt"
font-weight="normal" last-line-end-indent="-22pt" text-align="justify"
text-align-last="justify" text-indent="-14pt">
<fo:basic-link
internal-destination="_OPENTOPIC_TOC_PROCESSING_d70e1334"
line-height="150%">
<fo:inline end-indent="14pt"> System
Components </fo:inline>
<fo:inline keep-together.within-line="always"
start-indent="-14pt">
<fo:leader leader-pattern="dots"/>
<fo:page-number-citation
ref-id="_OPENTOPIC_TOC_PROCESSING_d70e1334"/>
</fo:inline>
</fo:basic-link>
</fo:block>
</fo:block>
I'm viewing the PDFs in Abobe Reader, but that hasn't made a difference
in the past.
Any idea what's going on?
Thanks for any insights.
yyy
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email:rwhee...@artifact-software.com
<mailto:rwhee...@artifact-software.com>
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone:866-970-2435, ext 102 <tel:866-970-2435%2C%20ext%20102>
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email:rwhee...@artifact-software.com
<mailto:rwhee...@artifact-software.com>
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone:866-970-2435, ext 102 <tel:866-970-2435%2C%20ext%20102>
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
