AW: hack to avoid memory overflow with tables
> Glen Mazza wrote: > FOP's goals should be (1) to be compliant/accurate with the spec The Area Tree is an implementation specification: either the XSL editors remove it from the specs or they specify it precisely as a portable, device-independent print file format. I ran Chuck Paussa's FO schema thru Castor. Anything goes and is formally valid. > (2) be able to generate the largest numbers of huge files in the smallest amount of time. Is the design optimized for big DocBooks, accounting reports 15'000 uniform pages long, many small business documents? Reminder on renderer requirements: o Data: basic draw objects (current FOP uses nothing else from the area tree). o Physical printers: pages in a sequential data stream o AWT viewer: random access to pages o PDF: finished pages may be shipped to the renderer, accepted page references don't cause page break changes. > To me, multiple layout strategies is > really like saying multiple applications. (After all, > the layout handler and renderers *form* an XSL FO > formatter.) Is there a common agreement on FOP components, processing modes (push/pull), intermediate data storage and the suitable interfaces? An overall design given, plugins and multiple layout strategies can be defined and evaluated. Most likely the findings will be: there is one layout strategy. Playing with spacing and balancing, hyphenation is switched off on demand. Plus some performance tips like: do not use forward page references, auto-sized big tables, text columns ... Hansuli Anderegg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RC4 (was Re: hack to avoid memory overflow with tables)
J.Pietschmann schrieb: Hi all, now that there are a few more modifications in the maintenance branch, waht about including the fixes mentione here: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-user&m=105371539508744&w=2 It would need some testing (read 0.20.5rc4) Nooo, no more RCs for 0.20.5 please It's almost one year after the last release and as it seems quite stable now so I would really like to make the release soon. Yes I know we agreed on 0.20.5 beeing the last release from maintenance branch but making RCs after RCs is IMHO worser than making changes after the "last release" and providing daily builds or whatever. Christian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: hack to avoid memory overflow with tables
--- Rhett Aultman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Moreover, is FOP really that far from, say, the HTML > rendering engine in a web browser with respect to > layout decisions? I see a lot of "interpretations" > and "opinions" going on in those engines, which is > why two browsers sometimes interpret my HTML table > layouts in different ways. > Exactly--note there are two *different* browsers, each choosing to implement the HTML standard differently, each hoping their decision is the best for the most number of users. To me, multiple layout strategies is really like saying multiple applications. (After all, the layout handler and renderers *form* an XSL FO formatter.) There are already plenty of teams trying to implement the XSL FO spec, each making its own decisions on which layouts/goals/tradeoffs, etc. are best. FOP is one of them--hopefully it will make the right decisions to have a large "market share". FOP's goals should be (1) to be compliant/accurate with the spec, and (2) be able to generate the largest numbers of huge files in the smallest amount of time. Instead of pluggable layout strategies, it may be better to have "compiler" switches for the various output types that would allow the user to make goal #1 vs. goal #2 tradeoffs where appropriate. We can put them in the CLI, and others wishing to build a GUI on top of FOP can nicely include them on options screens, etc. Glen __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: hack to avoid memory overflow with tables
Response below (one of these glorious days, I can stop using Outlook...) -Original Message- From: Glen Mazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 7:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: hack to avoid memory overflow with tables >FOP is ultimately a mathematical entity, so we should be able to avoid the matter-of-opinion conclusions that would lead to multiple layout strategies.< While I believe this is generally true, I remain skeptical that there is always a perfect layout strategy available every time. I think this might especially be true in cases of overconstraint relaxing or recovering from anomalous documents. My first impression is that either of these processes will largely be governed by heuristics, and it's my experience that where heuristics are involved, matters of opinion quickly follow. Moreover, is FOP really that far from, say, the HTML rendering engine in a web browser with respect to layout decisions? I see a lot of "interpretations" and "opinions" going on in those engines, which is why two browsers sometimes interpret my HTML table layouts in different ways. >While there can be plenty of discussion of how best to obtain #1 and #2, once it is determined that solution A takes x seconds and solution B takes x + 2 seconds, you tend to go with solution A. So over the long term, multiple layout strategies may not be needed. < They may not, but I think they might. I can safely say that I haven't read all of the FO spec, but I do see the word "may" cropping up from time to time with respect to spec compliance. I don't think we can create a single layout strategy that correctly selects the correct side of that "may" every time. For certain classes of documents (which, for argument's sake, aren't readily detectable in a programmatic way), the choice has to be made, and why not leave that choice in the hands of programmers and operators? I just mention these sorts of things because, all too often, spec compliance eventually becomes a matter of opinion anyway. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: hack to avoid memory overflow with tables
Chris Bowditch wrote: > What you say is true, but I think you missed one thing from your > analysis: > what if solution A took x seconds and B took x+2 seconds, but B had a > greater level of compliance and produced better results than solution A? > > Then you would want to give the users the choice between better > results or > performance. Which solution you choose would then depend on the > requirements > of the situation. I dont think you could just discard solution B > because it > is slower. You would try to work with A, but if the document was > too complex > to get good results with A, then the user could switch to using B Well said, and I think it even goes deeper than this. It may actually be /useful/ to have non-compliant LayoutStrategies. If a minimally compliant LayoutStrategy required 120% memory, or 2x processing time over a leaner but noncompliant LayoutStrategy (like our maintenance branch code), there will be some, especially in embedded environments, that will prefer the noncompliant LayoutStrategy. It may be possible within a LayoutStrategy to allow the user to configure some of these tradeoffs as well. Victor Mote - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: hack to avoid memory overflow with tables
Peter B. West wrote: > While I don't denigrate any of these ongoing efforts, I am increasingly > of the view that everything occurring between the reading of the fo xml > and the layout of the area tree is interconnected in very nasty and > intricate ways. The description of this process in the Rec (I resisted > the obvious temptation here) has done many developers, including the FOP > developers, a great disservice. > > It's this intertwining that makes me skeptical about pluggable layout. > It may be feasible, but I don't see that it is feasible until we have a > very good understanding of the way layout will be achieved, and a full > picture of the flow of control in the first full implementation. My naive understanding of the Area Tree is that it could / should be constructed as a "view" of the FO tree. It should not, for example, IMO, contain any Strings at all, but objects in it should contain offset and size values for the parent FOText object in the FO tree. Similarly, perhaps it should not contain the trait values at all, but should compute them from the parent on-the-fly. The FO tree should normalize the values as much as possible (which in many cases is completely), then the Area tree can complete whatever computation is necessary before returning the value to use. I realize that this violates your compute-it-once principle, but I was frankly confused by that principle. It seemed to me that the intertwining issues that you mention utterly prevent compute-it-once. Second, and more importantly, regardless of what design is used in the Area Tree, there is nothing that prevents us from factoring code that is common to more than one LayoutStrategy into a module that is usable by any LayoutStrategy. If there are issues that force things to be intertwined, then those could be "common" code. > Factoring out the high-level control is still a valuable and achievable > step forward, but I'm not sure about "control of when layout is started, > when FO trees are destroyed." I assume that refers to the patient vs. > eager layout discussion. At that level, certainly, control values can > be factored out. Actually the two examples listed are, in my mind, examples of the high-level control issues that we want factored out. Patient vs. eager is only part of the story. Also included here are such issues as reusing session and document objects in embedded environments. > I don't want to discourage your efforts, but I think you will need to > keep these things in mind. I will. Thanks. If I come back humbled from the effort, perhaps at least some useful documentation will emerge. Victor Mote - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: hack to avoid memory overflow with tables
From: Glen Mazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> As for "producing better results" (after compliance)--I would like to think the system designed could be such that the renderers are user-pluggable and -extensible--but my current knowledge of FOP is not formed enough to comment intelligently on that. Back to studying... ;) If I am understanding you correctly, then you are talking about having pluggable renderers instead of pluggable layout solutions? Surely producing better results is down to both the layout engine and renderer, which brings us back to the need for pluggable layout engines Chris _ Find a cheaper internet access deal - choose one to suit you. http://www.msn.co.uk/internetaccess - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: hack to avoid memory overflow with tables
--- Chris Bowditch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >From: Glen Mazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > >1.) Generate multiple document types accurately. > > > >2.) Generate a high number of very large documents > in > >a very short amount of time, with "high", "very > >large", and "very short" taken to their > mathematical > >limits. > > > >While there can be plenty of discussion of how best > to > >obtain #1 and #2, once it is determined that > solution > >A takes x seconds and solution B takes x + 2 > seconds, > >you tend to go with solution A. So over the long > >term, multiple layout strategies may not be needed. > > > > What you say is true, but I think you missed one > thing from your analysis: > what if solution A took x seconds and B took x+2 > seconds, but B had a > greater level of compliance and produced better > results than solution A? > No--that wasn't missed, except that I wasn't clear on #1 when I said "accurate"--it also meant "compliant with the spec". In the case given above, if A is not in compliance it would be tossed out to begin with. FOP must first be a reference implementation of the XSL-FO standard (#1). As for "producing better results" (after compliance)--I would like to think the system designed could be such that the renderers are user-pluggable and -extensible--but my current knowledge of FOP is not formed enough to comment intelligently on that. Back to studying... ;) Glen > Then you would want to give the users the choice > between better results or > performance. Which solution you choose would then > depend on the requirements > of the situation. I dont think you could just > discard solution B because it > is slower. You would try to work with A, but if the > document was too complex > to get good results with A, then the user could > switch to using B > > Chris > > _ > Hotmail messages direct to your mobile phone > http://www.msn.co.uk/msnmobile > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, email: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: hack to avoid memory overflow with tables
From: Glen Mazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1.) Generate multiple document types accurately. 2.) Generate a high number of very large documents in a very short amount of time, with "high", "very large", and "very short" taken to their mathematical limits. While there can be plenty of discussion of how best to obtain #1 and #2, once it is determined that solution A takes x seconds and solution B takes x + 2 seconds, you tend to go with solution A. So over the long term, multiple layout strategies may not be needed. What you say is true, but I think you missed one thing from your analysis: what if solution A took x seconds and B took x+2 seconds, but B had a greater level of compliance and produced better results than solution A? Then you would want to give the users the choice between better results or performance. Which solution you choose would then depend on the requirements of the situation. I dont think you could just discard solution B because it is slower. You would try to work with A, but if the document was too complex to get good results with A, then the user could switch to using B Chris _ Hotmail messages direct to your mobile phone http://www.msn.co.uk/msnmobile - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: hack to avoid memory overflow with tables
My thoughts tend to go in the direction to factor out support subsystems like fonts, PDF, SVG etc. These are areas where a lot of improvements have happened during the last months and I'm currently ending up applying bugfixes in two places. As Peter I see a lot of complications in trying to bring the two layout engines under one umbrella, though if you find a good way I'm certainly not going to stand in the way. I've decided to stay out of the layout engine (for now) because I've never invested enough time to really be of use in there. So my place is currently the "support subsystems" because that's where I can really make a difference. On 27.05.2003 19:32:07 Victor Mote wrote: > Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > > I'm slowly getting the impression it may be better if we really totally > > modularize FOP (splitting it up into several independently usable > > subprojects) so development is only split in the layout field which is > > the major problem-child here. But that alone would take long enough and > > I can't even imagine how much it will hurt the redesign. > > You're on the right track, but I don't know that we need separate > subprojects. I am just starting to implement an idea that I have been > kicking around for several weeks. I want to create a LayoutStrategy that is > either abstract or an interface, and which can be subclassed/implemented by > each concrete strategy. We currently have two -- one in the redesign branch, > and one in the maintenance branch. The goal would be to eventually drop the > maintenance branch layout system into the redesign code as an implementation > of LayoutStrategy. It will always be a deficient implementation, but right > now it is the best one that we have (else we would be releasing code from > the trunk). This would allow us to start releasing code from the trunk, and > would unify our efforts in infrastructure, control, FO Tree, Area Tree, etc. > This is something we really should do eventually anyway, and IMO it is > better to do sooner than later. Jeremias Maerki - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: hack to avoid memory overflow with tables
Victor, Jeremias, Just a couple of notes on the discussion below. It is a mistake to say, because there is no great ferment of coding, that nothing is being done on the redesign of layout. I, for one, am currently giving the layout a great deal of thought, triggered in my case by the requirements of integrating the alt.design FO tree. I'm sure the Keiron is in the same boat, as are you, Jeremias and, I think, Jo"rg (my mailer may scramble this). While I don't denigrate any of these ongoing efforts, I am increasingly of the view that everything occurring between the reading of the fo xml and the layout of the area tree is interconnected in very nasty and intricate ways. The description of this process in the Rec (I resisted the obvious temptation here) has done many developers, including the FOP developers, a great disservice. It's this intertwining that makes me skeptical about pluggable layout. It may be feasible, but I don't see that it is feasible until we have a very good understanding of the way layout will be achieved, and a full picture of the flow of control in the first full implementation. Factoring out the high-level control is still a valuable and achievable step forward, but I'm not sure about "control of when layout is started, when FO trees are destroyed." I assume that refers to the patient vs. eager layout discussion. At that level, certainly, control values can be factored out. I don't want to discourage your efforts, but I think you will need to keep these things in mind. Peter Victor Mote wrote: Jeremias Maerki wrote: I'm slowly getting the impression it may be better if we really totally modularize FOP (splitting it up into several independently usable subprojects) so development is only split in the layout field which is the major problem-child here. But that alone would take long enough and I can't even imagine how much it will hurt the redesign. ... In short, nothing is being done on redesign now, so how can it possibly be hurt by anything? ... It would be helpful to resolve some of our high-level control issues before starting down this path, or at least as part of this project. Moving control of when layout is started, when FO trees are destroyed, etc. up to higher-level objects will be extremely helpful in isolating these subsystems from each other and allowing multiple layout strategies. I see the sequence as follows: 1. Resolve design of, then implement the high-level control changes. This is the Session / Document / Rendering Context issue discussed on the Avalonization wiki, section entitled "Startup Concepts Proposal" at http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?FOPAvalonization 2. Isolate the (existing redesign) layout by forcing all contact with the layout systems to run through the LayoutStrategy. Every layout class except the Stategy implementation becomes non-public (I think). 3. Drop in the maintenance branch layout as an implementation of LayoutStrategy, keeping it isolated as well. Even if this effort is unsuccessful for some reason, or the redesign layout is completed before this can be done, steps one and two above are still needed & useful. -- Peter B. West http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/resume.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: hack to avoid memory overflow with tables
--- Victor Mote <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The goal would be > to eventually drop the > maintenance branch layout system into the redesign > code as an implementation > of LayoutStrategy. It will always be a deficient > implementation, but right > now it is the best one that we have (else we would > be releasing code from > the trunk). FOP is ultimately a mathematical entity, so we should be able to avoid the matter-of-opinion conclusions that would lead to multiple layout strategies. I see FOP's goals as twofold: 1.) Generate multiple document types accurately. 2.) Generate a high number of very large documents in a very short amount of time, with "high", "very large", and "very short" taken to their mathematical limits. While there can be plenty of discussion of how best to obtain #1 and #2, once it is determined that solution A takes x seconds and solution B takes x + 2 seconds, you tend to go with solution A. So over the long term, multiple layout strategies may not be needed. Glen __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: hack to avoid memory overflow with tables
Jeremias Maerki wrote: > I'm slowly getting the impression it may be better if we really totally > modularize FOP (splitting it up into several independently usable > subprojects) so development is only split in the layout field which is > the major problem-child here. But that alone would take long enough and > I can't even imagine how much it will hurt the redesign. You're on the right track, but I don't know that we need separate subprojects. I am just starting to implement an idea that I have been kicking around for several weeks. I want to create a LayoutStrategy that is either abstract or an interface, and which can be subclassed/implemented by each concrete strategy. We currently have two -- one in the redesign branch, and one in the maintenance branch. The goal would be to eventually drop the maintenance branch layout system into the redesign code as an implementation of LayoutStrategy. It will always be a deficient implementation, but right now it is the best one that we have (else we would be releasing code from the trunk). This would allow us to start releasing code from the trunk, and would unify our efforts in infrastructure, control, FO Tree, Area Tree, etc. This is something we really should do eventually anyway, and IMO it is better to do sooner than later. There are three issues: 1) Some will not like this approach as it seems to draw resources away from the redesign. I'll not reargue this issue again now unless it is needed. In short, nothing is being done on redesign now, so how can it possibly be hurt by anything? Also, eliminating thrashing between two branches will help all of us find resources to work on layout redesign. 2) Some will think that bringing the maintenance branch layout into the redesign will reintroduce the maintenance branch problems. Obviously, this should be avoided, and I think it can be. There are no doubt methods and data which will need to be moved around to get the maintenance branch layout modularized, but it seems possible. 3) It would be helpful to resolve some of our high-level control issues before starting down this path, or at least as part of this project. Moving control of when layout is started, when FO trees are destroyed, etc. up to higher-level objects will be extremely helpful in isolating these subsystems from each other and allowing multiple layout strategies. I see the sequence as follows: 1. Resolve design of, then implement the high-level control changes. This is the Session / Document / Rendering Context issue discussed on the Avalonization wiki, section entitled "Startup Concepts Proposal" at http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?FOPAvalonization 2. Isolate the (existing redesign) layout by forcing all contact with the layout systems to run through the LayoutStrategy. Every layout class except the Stategy implementation becomes non-public (I think). 3. Drop in the maintenance branch layout as an implementation of LayoutStrategy, keeping it isolated as well. Even if this effort is unsuccessful for some reason, or the redesign layout is completed before this can be done, steps one and two above are still needed & useful. I really didn't want to mention any of this until it was done, but I wanted to encourage Jeremias' train of thought. Also, coming to an agreement on steps one and two, and completing them, makes step three much easier. If we can reach a consensus on items 1 and 2, I'll start on them right away. I don't think they are big tasks, but they are pervasive and design-oriented, and I think they require your approval. Victor Mote - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: table overflow and markers on 20.2
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > but I thought these were a function of the unfinished markers in 20.2. I still don't know what "these" refers to, and what function is meant. J.Pietschmann - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: table overflow and markers on 20.2
J.Pietschmann: Let me restate the line: > but I thought these were a function of markers in 20.2. as but I thought these were a function of the unfinished markers in 20.2. Sorry if I offended. Thanks for the info. -Lou "J.Pietschmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 08/01/2002 09:30:29 Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject: Re: table overflow and markers on 20.2 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The markers work fine > except in one instance: if ROW4 and ROW5 overflow into the next page, the > retrieve marker will pull ROW5MARKERDATA1 and ignore ROW4MARKERDATA1 even > though ROW 4 is a distinctly new row. If more than two rows overflow, it > seems to work OK (i.e. if ROW3,ROW4 and ROW5 overflow, it pulls from ROW3). This could have something to do with the spilling algorithm. The ROW4 is added to a page, with markers, then it is discovered not to fit, the layout is undone and the row goes onto the next page. It is quite possible that markers aren't handled properly in this case. There *could* be problems with rendering areas if the marker isn't the first child of the FO it marks, though I was unsuccessful so far to construct one. > I do get several "ERROR [fop]:fo:marker > must be an initial child,and 'marker-class-name' must be unique for same > parent" messages, Markers which cause the latter message are ignored. You should fix these errors. The first message can already be caused by whitespace preceding the marker, like (you see the whitespace, don't you?) This is usually not a real pressing problem, though it is always advisable to fix error messages as well as warnings, lest you ignore something important. > but I thought these were a function of markers in 20.2. Duh? J.Pietschmann - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: table overflow and markers on 20.2
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The markers work fine > except in one instance: if ROW4 and ROW5 overflow into the next page, the > retrieve marker will pull ROW5MARKERDATA1 and ignore ROW4MARKERDATA1 even > though ROW 4 is a distinctly new row. If more than two rows overflow, it > seems to work OK (i.e. if ROW3,ROW4 and ROW5 overflow, it pulls from ROW3). This could have something to do with the spilling algorithm. The ROW4 is added to a page, with markers, then it is discovered not to fit, the layout is undone and the row goes onto the next page. It is quite possible that markers aren't handled properly in this case. There *could* be problems with rendering areas if the marker isn't the first child of the FO it marks, though I was unsuccessful so far to construct one. > I do get several "ERROR [fop]:fo:marker > must be an initial child,and 'marker-class-name' must be unique for same > parent" messages, Markers which cause the latter message are ignored. You should fix these errors. The first message can already be caused by whitespace preceding the marker, like (you see the whitespace, don't you?) This is usually not a real pressing problem, though it is always advisable to fix error messages as well as warnings, lest you ignore something important. > but I thought these were a function of markers in 20.2. Duh? J.Pietschmann - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
table overflow and markers on 20.2
I just experienced some bizarre marker/table behavior that I hope someone can shed some light on. I am using fop 0.20.2. Here is the scenario: Say I have a table that has rows of data and marker data: ROW1DATA1ROW1DATA2ROW1DATA3ROW1MARKERDATA1 ROW2DATA1ROW2DATA2ROW2DATA3ROW2MARKERDATA1 ROW3DATA1ROW3DATA2ROW3DATA3ROW3MARKERDATA1 ROW4DATA1ROW4DATA2ROW4DATA3ROW4MARKERDATA1 ROW5DATA1ROW5DATA2ROW5DATA3ROW5MARKERDATA1 The marker data is being used for running headers on each page (retrieve-position=first-starting-within-page). The markers work fine except in one instance: if ROW4 and ROW5 overflow into the next page, the retrieve marker will pull ROW5MARKERDATA1 and ignore ROW4MARKERDATA1 even though ROW 4 is a distinctly new row. If more than two rows overflow, it seems to work OK (i.e. if ROW3,ROW4 and ROW5 overflow, it pulls from ROW3). Am I doing something wrong here? I do get several "ERROR [fop]:fo:marker must be an initial child,and 'marker-class-name' must be unique for same parent" messages, but I thought these were a function of markers in 20.2. -Lou - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 7323] - Content overflow in fo:table-cell if content too long
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7323>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7323 Content overflow in fo:table-cell if content too long [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||INVALID --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2002-06-03 08:18 --- This is, strictly speaking, a feature rather than a bug. Without opportunities to insert automatic line breaks, or hyphenation, long character strings are allowed to overflow the box they are in. How the overflow is handled is determined by the overflow property in effect. The default value is "auto", which can be interpreted as "whatever fits". http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl/slice7.html#overflow, in particular FOP implements only the overflow="visible" setting. FOP does not yet support any other setting (actually, this is a bug, already reported multiple times). - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 7323] - Content overflow in fo:table-cell if content too long
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7323>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7323 Content overflow in fo:table-cell if content too long [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OS/Version|Windows NT/2K |All Platform|PC |All - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 7323] New: - Content overflow in fo:table-cell if content too long
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7323>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7323 Content overflow in fo:table-cell if content too long Summary: Content overflow in fo:table-cell if content too long Product: Fop Version: 0.20.3 Platform: PC OS/Version: Windows NT/2K Status: NEW Severity: Normal Priority: Other Component: page-master/layout AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] If a fo:table-cell contains a single word (consisting only of characters) that does not fit into the cell's block area (i.e., it is too long), that word is outputted anyway, overlapping with any content on the right side to the cell. I prepared an example .fo file which demonstrates he problem: http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Format";> Datum Massnahme 21.03.2002 13:59:37 DiesisteinTestobeinüberlangeswortüberdenrandhinausgeschriebenwirdodernichtmalschauenwennjagibtseinproblem:) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
overflow support
Folks: Is overflow="hidden" supported on a block? I'm trying to get my block data to truncate at the cell boundary. TIA, -Lou - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
table-cells and clipping (overflow="hidden")
Title: table-cells and clipping (overflow="hidden") Hello, I've got a problem with tables and clipping. In my document, content of a table cell shouldn't exceed the tabel cell. For this reason I tried to use the clip or overflow property, but it doesn't work. Content containing spaces is wrapped, but other content exceed the cell. This is a snippet from my code: ... 1.7976931348623157E308 you can't read this ... Is this my fault or a bug in FOP? I'm not too good in XSL:FO... is there another way of defining things matching my needs? Best regards, Jens Jens von Pilgrim 4flow AG Berlin, Germany
RE: overflow="hidden" and big images...
Actually, it does, although not completely. jw -Original Message- From: Etwin van Krimpen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 9:40 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: overflow="hidden" and big images... Fop doesn't support block-container. See: http://xml.apache.org/fop/implemented.html Regards, Etwin - Original Message - From: "Beer, Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Fop-liste (E-Mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 4:09 PM Subject: overflow="hidden" and big images... > Hi Folks! > > I wanted to put a logo on a letter using a > where I put my image in. The image should be clipped if it is > too big. > But all that happens is that the image disapears. Also if I > used overflow="visible" the image disapears. Is that a bug or > a feature?? > > Christian > > __ > DIRON Wirtschaftsinformatik GmbH & Co. KG > Christian Beer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > Daimlerweg 39-41Tel. : +49(251)979-200 > 48163 Muenster Fax : +49(251)979-2020 > Germany Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: overflow="hidden" and big images...
That page must be out of date. I use is several places successfully. Scott -Original Message- From: Etwin van Krimpen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 10:40 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: overflow="hidden" and big images... Fop doesn't support block-container. See: http://xml.apache.org/fop/implemented.html Regards, Etwin - Original Message - From: "Beer, Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Fop-liste (E-Mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 4:09 PM Subject: overflow="hidden" and big images... > Hi Folks! > > I wanted to put a logo on a letter using a > where I put my image in. The image should be clipped if it is > too big. > But all that happens is that the image disapears. Also if I > used overflow="visible" the image disapears. Is that a bug or > a feature?? > > Christian > > __ > DIRON Wirtschaftsinformatik GmbH & Co. KG > Christian Beer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > Daimlerweg 39-41Tel. : +49(251)979-200 > 48163 Muenster Fax : +49(251)979-2020 > Germany Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: overflow="hidden" and big images...
Fop doesn't support block-container. See: http://xml.apache.org/fop/implemented.html Regards, Etwin - Original Message - From: "Beer, Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Fop-liste (E-Mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 4:09 PM Subject: overflow="hidden" and big images... > Hi Folks! > > I wanted to put a logo on a letter using a > where I put my image in. The image should be clipped if it is > too big. > But all that happens is that the image disapears. Also if I > used overflow="visible" the image disapears. Is that a bug or > a feature?? > > Christian > > __ > DIRON Wirtschaftsinformatik GmbH & Co. KG > Christian Beer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > Daimlerweg 39-41Tel. : +49(251)979-200 > 48163 Muenster Fax : +49(251)979-2020 > Germany Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
overflow="hidden" and big images...
Hi Folks! I wanted to put a logo on a letter using a where I put my image in. The image should be clipped if it is too big. But all that happens is that the image disapears. Also if I used overflow="visible" the image disapears. Is that a bug or a feature?? Christian __ DIRON Wirtschaftsinformatik GmbH & Co. KG Christian Beer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Daimlerweg 39-41Tel. : +49(251)979-200 48163 Muenster Fax : +49(251)979-2020 Germany Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
overflow
Hi*, how can I get an "overflow=hidden" or something similar in a fo:table-row? I'm using the old Version 0.16. Thanks, > Karin Thaens > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How to get information about overflow...
Hi list! I have fop-code to create a postcard (page-height="105mm" page-width="148mm") where on the first page there is an image and on the second page there should be text on the left and space on the right (for the address). This snippet should create the text on the left: That works fine, if the text is short enough. If it is too long for the page, there is no warning (like ">") but the text is missing... I thought that overflow="hidden" should do the trick, but it doesn't!! Please help!! Greetings Christian beer __ DIRON Wirtschaftsinformatik GmbH & Co. KG Christian Beer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Daimlerweg 39-41Tel. : +49(251)979-200 48163 Muenster Fax : +49(251)979-2020 Germany Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sequence master for overflow
Hi all, I'd like to specify a particular page-master (regions) for the first page and another page-master (other regions) for rest of the doc wich is the overflow of the first page. How could I do so ? Other question : Is it possible to avoid the page break into a block ? (page-break-inside="avoid" doesn't seem to be supported) Thanks for helping. Romain - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: overflow property not working
Currently this is not implemented, that is the value is read but nothing is done with the overflow that you have set. On Mon, 06 Aug 2001 21:51:56 eric.deandrea wrote: > I have a table with 4 columns. One of the cells has text in it that is > bigger than the size of the column and the text is over-writing the text > in > the following cell. How do I stop this? I have this: > > > > > > > > > > text-align="start" > font-size="10pt" > line-height="14pt" > overflow="hidden" > wrap-option="wrap"> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
overflow property not working
I have a table with 4 columns. One of the cells has text in it that is bigger than the size of the column and the text is over-writing the text in the following cell. How do I stop this? I have this: This is some text in cell 1 that will over-write the text in cell 2. This is some text in cell 2. This is some text in cell 3. This is some text in cell 4. -Eric Eric Deandrea Software Engineer (978) 698-6351 Inforonics, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 30 Porter Rd. Littleton, MA 01460 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: overflow-paginate
At 08:19 AM 7/6/01 -0600, Robyn MacDuff wrote: >I am looking for help with overflow-paginate function of XSL. I have data >elements that overflow the block sizes and overflow-paginate="8.00in" >doesn't seem to be workning for me. Without getting into a discussion of what FOP supports in this regard, can I clarify that you are trying to use the "overflow" property on one region or other (possibly fo:region-body?), and you also want to set the "media-usage" property on fo:root to "paginate"? Neither one of these properties supports a length specification in any case. Elucidation welcome. :-) Regards, Arved Sandstrom Fairly Senior Software Type e-plicity (http://www.e-plicity.com) Wireless * B2B * J2EE * XML --- Halifax, Nova Scotia - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
overflow-paginate
I am looking for help with overflow-paginate function of XSL. I have data elements that overflow the block sizes and overflow-paginate="8.00in" doesn't seem to be workning for me. Robyn MacDuff [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Bug 2170] - Table Column overflow - endless loop
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2170 *** shadow/2170 Wed Jun 13 21:56:55 2001 --- shadow/2170.tmp.18535 Mon Jun 18 01:39:14 2001 *** *** 2,9 | Table Column overflow - endless loop | ++ |Bug #: 2170Product: Fop | ! | Status: NEW Version: all | ! | Resolution:Platform: PC | | Severity: MajorOS/Version: Windows NT/2K | | Priority: Other Component: pdf renderer| ++ --- 2,9 | Table Column overflow - endless loop | ++ |Bug #: 2170Product: Fop | ! | Status: RESOLVEDVersion: all | ! | Resolution: FIXED Platform: PC | | Severity: MajorOS/Version: Windows NT/2K | | Priority: Other Component: pdf renderer| ++ *** *** 1632,1634 --- 1632,1637 + + --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2001-06-18 01:39 --- + Works as of FOP 0.19 \ No newline at end of file - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Bug 2170] New: - Table Column overflow - endless loop
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 12:56 PM Subject: [Bug 2170] New: - Table Column overflow - endless loop > http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2170 > > *** shadow/2170 Wed Jun 13 21:56:55 2001 > --- shadow/2170.tmp.18094 Wed Jun 13 21:56:55 2001 > *** > *** 0 > --- 1,1634 > + +=== =+ > + | Table Column overflow - endless loop | > + +--- -+ > + |Bug #: 2170Product: Fop | > + | Status: NEW Version: all | > + | Resolution:Platform: PC | > + | Severity: MajorOS/Version: Windows NT/2K | > + | Priority: Other Component: pdf renderer | > + +--- -+ > + | Assigned To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | > + | Reported By: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | > + | CC list: Cc: | > + +--- -+ > + | URL: | > + +=== =+ > + | DESCRIPTION | > + I have a single page document that basically consists of 3 columns. Each column > + is further divided with additional tables. Each columns contains a number of > + tables. The first column containing a single table. Columns 2 has 3 tables and > + columns 3 has 1 table. > + > I tried it out with fop0.19, it hangs with a null error complaining at link. However commenting out , the fo runs properly and voila the output looks really good. I think fop does pretty good work, wonder what all the complaining is about!! Whoever's done the tables, Ms Keiron or is that Ms Karen, has done a pretty good job! I'll do the background-image next week. Could somebody send me a style-sheet that proves that FOP doesnt do a good enough job of area-layout? I'll need a starting point , a bad looking output , to start working on!! reagrds seshadri - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
