I am generating tables in xsl-fo format and using fop to generate the pdf. A
table is repeated n times. Some time the table is spread across two pages.
How can I force the table to carry over to the next page if it does not fit
onto the current page and not spread across two pages.
--
View this m
On a serious note (as opposed to my outburst on fop-users), I think we
should really discuss the FOP release plan which we haven't updated in a
while. I would hate to see FOP in 0.x mode after 10 years of existence.
Let's assume 0.20.5 was actually FOP 1.0, and FOP 0.95 was actually FOP
2.0. How ab
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46240
Summary: break-before breaks span?
Product: Fop
Version: 0.94
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows XP
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46240
--- Comment #1 from Georg Datterl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-19 01:22:35 PST
---
Created an attachment (id=22891)
--> (https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22891)
Test case
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apac
Simon Pepping wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 06:59:07PM +0100, Andreas Delmelle wrote:
On 17 Nov 2008, at 21:35, Andreas Delmelle wrote:
Just some more follow-up:
On 17 Nov 2008, at 20:40, Simon Pepping wrote:
Someone sent me a file which also shows problems with hyphenation:
Some text endin
Hi Vincent,
well, I haven't thought this through, yet. I've just let ideas bubble up.
I agree that migrating the development tab over to the Wiki is probably
a good idea since the most current stuff is there anyway. Cleaning the
stale stuff is long overdue. It only confuses and misleads people.
A
Hi Jeremias,
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Good idea. Going further, we could think about splitting the FAQ into a
project part and a product part. To make the release procedures easier
we might want to split the website into a project website and a
product/release website. What we have now just takes
Hi Jörg,
J.Pietschmann wrote:
On 18.11.2008 12:14, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
Guys,
What do you think of removing entries in the FAQ section that are
specific to 0.20.5 and earlier versions? This would make it shorter, so
less likely to scare people away, and in the same time easier for them
to
On 19 Nov 2008, at 09:37, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
How about calling the next version 2.009 (to be released in early
2009).
I like this idea. Something different that shows a clear break with
the past, and at the same time not too seriously...
+1
OhpointXitis is really bad.
Agreed. We
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46240
Andreas L. Delmelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Andreas Delmelle
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 18 Nov 2008, at 12:14, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
>
>> What do you think of removing entries in the FAQ section that are
>> specific to 0.20.5 and earlier versions?
>
> Good idea. +1
Agreed... +1
> If we're going to
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46240
Andreas L. Delmelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:
What|Removed |Added
OS/Version|Windows XP |All
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46240
Andreas L. Delmelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
13 matches
Mail list logo
