RE: Alternatives to auto table layout
-Original Message- From: James Earl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi James, Thanks for the example. vMax is a string length in this example though, right? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think proportional-column-width() will work with a string length will it? Hmm.. Not sure what *exactly* you are referring to, but XSLT's string-length() function returns a number, and that number is what gets fed to the proportional-column-width() function. Don't know if you have read up on the definition of proportional-column-width(), but it works more or less as follows: - first all other specified column-widths are resolved (explicitly set to an absolute or a percentage value) - the total of these is subtracted from the table-width - then, for all remaining columns whose width is defined by p-c-w(), the total of the numbers is made, and the remaining table-width is distributed over these columns along the proportions that are specified So, if you have two columns like this: fo:table-column column-width=proportional-column-width(1) / fo:table-column column-width=proportional-column-width(5) / The second one will always be 5 times as wide as the first, no matter what else... Using string-length() is indeed a bit rudimentary, in that it can, strictly speaking, only approach the actual text-width when a fixed-width font is used further on. If you want to refine that, you would need to take into account the font-metrics as well... Also, the proportions will only look nice if you have all rows of the same height (meaning: no line-breaks inside cells) Sure, this too can be compensated for. Say you have a max record width (sum of all respective max field widths) of 65, then each column gets its width according to a calculation like [( proportional-width / 65 ) * remaining-table-width ] Other than that... could it be that you're a bit misled by the subtle difference between XSLT and XSL-FO (?) The result of string-length() is resolved long before FOP starts digesting the actual fo:table-column, so FOP sees nothing of the string-length() function. That's the XSLT processor's realm... HTH! Greetz, Andreas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Where to download high-quality fonts
I think I'm getting the hang of installing fonts in fop, but I can't find any site where I can download high-quality fonts. I think adobe Type 1 fonts are preferable? I would like to have some of the fonts I am use to, such as Bookman, New Century Schoolbook, etc. Can anyone point me to a site? Also, I really like the font that TeX uses. Is there anyway to make this font available to fop? Thanks. I have looked for the past 4 hours (including at the appropriate FAQ's) and finally decided that someone here might know of some advice right off. Paul -- *Paul Tremblay * [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Where to download high-quality fonts
Can't you just grab them out of the windows/fonts directory? Or am I talking out my clack? Chris. -Original Message- From: Paul Tremblay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 26 May 2004 11:51 AM To: fop mailing list Subject: Where to download high-quality fonts I think I'm getting the hang of installing fonts in fop, but I can't find any site where I can download high-quality fonts. I think adobe Type 1 fonts are preferable? I would like to have some of the fonts I am use to, such as Bookman, New Century Schoolbook, etc. Can anyone point me to a site? Also, I really like the font that TeX uses. Is there anyway to make this font available to fop? Thanks. I have looked for the past 4 hours (including at the appropriate FAQ's) and finally decided that someone here might know of some advice right off. Paul -- *Paul Tremblay * [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Where to download high-quality fonts
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 11:45:04AM +1000, Chris Warr wrote: Can't you just grab them out of the windows/fonts directory? Or am I talking out my clack? Can you? I have a linux box. My girlfriend has a Macintosh, which puts fonts in some type of suitcase. If you can just grab those high-quality fonts off the Windows system (and they are not copyrighted), then I just need to find someone with a Windows machine. Anyone every take a Windows font and use it in fop? Thanks Paul -- *Paul Tremblay * [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Where to download high-quality fonts
Pretty sure that's how we got our Arial font in there, don't know about the legal issues though. -Original Message- From: Paul Tremblay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 26 May 2004 12:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Where to download high-quality fonts On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 11:45:04AM +1000, Chris Warr wrote: Can't you just grab them out of the windows/fonts directory? Or am I talking out my clack? Can you? I have a linux box. My girlfriend has a Macintosh, which puts fonts in some type of suitcase. If you can just grab those high-quality fonts off the Windows system (and they are not copyrighted), then I just need to find someone with a Windows machine. Anyone every take a Windows font and use it in fop? Thanks Paul -- *Paul Tremblay * [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Where to download high-quality fonts
-Original Message- From: Paul Tremblay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, snip / Anyone every take a Windows font and use it in fop? Sure! Happens all the time... Concerning Chris' question about the legal issues, that's a whole different story (--the details of which I'm not too familiar with) So you know what to do: take one of these nifty USB SmartDrives into the first office you run into, and copy the whole font library from a random computer... ;) Greetz, Andreas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Symbol ZapfDingats font doesn't render
Hi,* I had a similar problem. These 2 special fonts are only available in a normal format (neither bold nor italic). You should check if inherited properties affect thes 2 traits. If this is the source problem, just add appropriate text-decoration=none and font-weight=normal. Tcho -Message d'origine- De : Clay Leeds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Envoyé : mardi 25 mai 2004 19:07 À : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Objet : Re: Symbol ZapfDingats font doesn't render Paul, On May 25, 2004, at 9:52 AM, Paul Tremblay wrote: I cannot get Symbol font to render. Here is a snippet of my code: fo:block font-family = Symbol Hello world in Symbol /fo:block I don't get an error message when fop runs, but when I open the resulting file in a PDF viewer, I see: # # ## ## I get a simlar problem when I use ZapfDingbats: rather than differnet characters, I see the scissors symbol repeated for each letter. I believe Symbol and ZapfDingbats are built into fop, right? (By the way, are there any other fonts built it, besides Times, Helvitical, and Courrier?) Thanks Paul I don't know why it's not working for you. Is it possible you don't have Symbol on *your* system? (Do you get errors when running FOP? Try running FOP with the '-d' debug flag...). Try loading it on another computer. BTW, the definitive source for information is the FOP Fonts page[1]. Web Maestro Clay p.s. It's also possible you 'typed' 'Symbol' incorrectly. I notice that you've misspelled 'Helvetica' and 'Courier'. As for others, there are 14 'base fonts', but they are normal, bold, italic, bold italic variants of Helvetica, Times Courier, plus Symbol ZapfDingbats. [1] http://xml.apache.org/fop/fonts.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Symbol ZapfDingats font doesn't render
Hi (2) Alternative source problem: The native charsets are limited to some characters. For example, in the symbol font, normal letters (#x41; to #x7A;) are not implemented. If you need to use greek characters, you must use appropriate charcodes (i.e. #x0391; as Alpha to #x03D6; as omega). I send you attached pdf file that shows the 14 default charsets (helvetica, courrier and times fonts needs 4 charsets each). By Tcho -Message d'origine- De : Pascal Sancho Envoyé : mercredi 26 mai 2004 05:00 À : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Objet : RE: Symbol ZapfDingats font doesn't render Hi,* I had a similar problem. These 2 special fonts are only available in a normal format (neither bold nor italic). You should check if inherited properties affect thes 2 traits. If this is the source problem, just add appropriate text-decoration=none and font-weight=normal. Tcho -Message d'origine- De : Clay Leeds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Envoyé : mardi 25 mai 2004 19:07 À : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Objet : Re: Symbol ZapfDingats font doesn't render Paul, On May 25, 2004, at 9:52 AM, Paul Tremblay wrote: I cannot get Symbol font to render. Here is a snippet of my code: fo:block font-family = Symbol Hello world in Symbol /fo:block I don't get an error message when fop runs, but when I open the resulting file in a PDF viewer, I see: # # ## ## I get a simlar problem when I use ZapfDingbats: rather than differnet characters, I see the scissors symbol repeated for each letter. I believe Symbol and ZapfDingbats are built into fop, right? (By the way, are there any other fonts built it, besides Times, Helvitical, and Courrier?) Thanks Paul I don't know why it's not working for you. Is it possible you don't have Symbol on *your* system? (Do you get errors when running FOP? Try running FOP with the '-d' debug flag...). Try loading it on another computer. BTW, the definitive source for information is the FOP Fonts page[1]. Web Maestro Clay p.s. It's also possible you 'typed' 'Symbol' incorrectly. I notice that you've misspelled 'Helvetica' and 'Courier'. As for others, there are 14 'base fonts', but they are normal, bold, italic, bold italic variants of Helvetica, Times Courier, plus Symbol ZapfDingbats. [1] http://xml.apache.org/fop/fonts.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] fonts.fo.pdf Description: fonts.fo.pdf - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: unwanted blank page because of page count
Clay Leeds wrote: snip/ I guess that's possible. It's also possible that whatever problem you're having is due to portions of fop-0.20.5 not yet in compliance with the spec (FOP is 'moving towards' the spec, but check the Compliance page[1] to (currently shows 'basic' compliance, but not 'extended' nor 'complete' compliance with force-page-count object). Compliance is either Yes, No or Partial. The basic/extended/complete columns refer to which part of the spec that FO is categorised under. I know this has confused people before. Nonetheless, trying every value for force-page-count might yield different/better results.. Alas, I feel that what Paul is trying to achieve may not be possible with XSL-FO. Chris - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: spending too much time in PropertyList.findProperty
Steven McNeel wrote: (2) org.apache.fop.fo.PropertyList.findProperty - 26.4% - this is the other main culprit. The time spent here is divided fairly evenly among the following three methods of PropertyListBuilder: computeProperty - 8.8% isCorrespondingForced - 5.7% getShorthand - 5.8% Similar numbers are found with OptimizeIt (6.21%, 7.9%, 7.78% respectively) with JDK 1.4.1 under Windows with FOP 0.20.5. Those three were the top 3 hotspots. It also appears that I have CPU and memory problems with FOP due to too complex tables. -- Thorbjoern Ravn Andersen ...plus...Tubular Bells! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AW: question about performance
hi.. thanks guys for some answers... i think i'll doing some experiments with the performance using the xalan... i suspect that it was the FO-Processor that took the most resources, because i have some graphics in the header, and page-citation in the footer .. a little bit out of topic.. my supervisor told me this morning, that i should take TeX/LaTeX to produce the pdf...he said, it should be faster with TeX .. what i mean here is not the FO-Processor from Passive-TeX, but pure TeX,... using Java to get the input from the database and then generate the pdf using pdfTeX library, or something like that does anyone here have any experience with TeX and can told me about the performance greets sandy -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Clay Leeds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet am: Dienstag, 25. Mai 2004 20:22 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: question about performance Sandy, On May 25, 2004, at 11:04 AM, Andreas L. Delmelle wrote: Hmm... XSL-FO is designed exactly to serve purposes like this. That being said: is it actually FOP's processing that takes a long time, or is it the XSL transform? Can you test this a bit maybe? Run the XSL transform separately (preferrably also through another processor than Xalan to compare results). Just adding this, because I know out of experience that 'newbie' code can easily drain an XSLT processor's resources. Things like double forward slashes ( '//*' ) might seem 'handy' in being able to retrieve a node from any context in the stylesheet, but an explicit XPath expression pointing at exactly the right node saves the processor a few (--possibly quite a few) unnecessary tree traversals. Also, could you do a bit more research on whether it is the context of the servlet that creates the delay? Try rendering the same XML+XSLT via the command-line, and see if there's any noticeable difference... Hope this helps! Greetz, Andreas To continue a bit on where I think Andreas was headed, there's a script distributed with FOP, you can use to test the XSL portion: Xalan. The scripts are called 'xalan.bat' (Windows/DOS) and 'xalan.sh' (the rest of us) The cmd line is simple: xalan.sh version: xalan.sh -IN input.xml -XSL input.xsl -OUT output.fo xalan.bat version xalan.bat -IN input.xml -XSL input.xsl -OUT output.fo There are other commands which you can see by running xalan.bat/xalan.sh with no arguments. Hope this helps! Web Maestro Clay - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: spanning columns
On May 25, 2004, at 14:42, Chris Bowditch wrote: A.M. wrote: Hi List- I am relatively new to FO. I am trying to create a 2-column page with text that wraps into the next column at a position on the page. I can see it is possible by putting a leader in as shown in one of the Apache FOP examples, however I need to balance the text in the columns. do you mean; fo:block span=allfo:leader//fo:block Exactly. I've been toying with this and I don't understand how FOP decides where to place the leader- making the break. Is there some attribute to shift it up or down without adding unnecessary attributes to the leading block ?(I guess I could mark half the text as keep in column but I'd rather have more control over the leader.) Imagine that each column's text would then touch the bottom border. I would try this with tables but then I would have to know exactly where to break the text. Here's some ASCII art of what I need: |---| |Title1 | | |paragraph text1|t1 continue| |text1 text1 tex|d from prev| |t1 text1 text1 |ious column| |text1 text1 tex|balanced. | | | | |Title2 | | |paragraph text2|t2 continue| |text2 text2 tex|d+balance. | |---| Column balancing isnt implemented properly in FOP 0.20.5 I'm afraid. You can experiment by adding some white space after the first lot of text. Oy. ¬¬¬ AgentM [EMAIL PROTECTED] ¬¬¬ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IPD error although width=100%
... hi.. i got this error message everytime i run my fop : [WARNING] Sum of fixed column widths 793693 greater than maximum specified IPD 0 [ERROR] At least one of minimum, optimum, or maximum IPD must be specified on table. [ERROR] At least one of minimum, optimum, or maximum IPD must be specified on table. [WARNING] Sum of fixed column widths 793700 greater than maximum specified IPD 785197 i already tried to set all the column width to 100% , but it didn't make any difference ..as i found it from the archive .. J.Pietschmann wrote this Your options: specify all column widths in absolute units, or specify the table width. The table width can be given as percentage (contrary to column widths), so you can have a table spanning the whold page width by specifying width=100%. can I please attach my .fo file to the list so somebody can take a look of my file and check it,.. thanks a lot in advance sandy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IPD error although width=100%
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... hi.. i got this error message everytime i run my fop : [WARNING] Sum of fixed column widths 793693 greater than maximum specified IPD 0 This error is simply saying that youve declared columns whose total width is greater than the width of the page. Column widths need to be specified either as fixed values, e.g. 5cm, 25mm, etc or using the proportional-column-width() function. You cannot use percentages in column widths. You do not need to specify a width for the table itself. snip/ can I please attach my .fo file to the list so somebody can take a look of my file and check it,.. you may post a small snippet, showing the table definition. Chris - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Alternatives to auto table layout
On Tue, 2004-05-25 at 18:14, Andreas L. Delmelle wrote: -Original Message- From: James Earl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi James, Thanks for the example. vMax is a string length in this example though, right? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think proportional-column-width() will work with a string length will it? Hmm.. Not sure what *exactly* you are referring to, but XSLT's string-length() function returns a number, and that number is what gets fed to the proportional-column-width() function. Don't know if you have read up on the definition of proportional-column-width(), but it works more or less as follows: - first all other specified column-widths are resolved (explicitly set to an absolute or a percentage value) - the total of these is subtracted from the table-width - then, for all remaining columns whose width is defined by p-c-w(), the total of the numbers is made, and the remaining table-width is distributed over these columns along the proportions that are specified So, if you have two columns like this: fo:table-column column-width=proportional-column-width(1) / fo:table-column column-width=proportional-column-width(5) / The second one will always be 5 times as wide as the first, no matter what else... I did read up on proportional-column-width() on w3.org, but your description of it makes things more clear. Thanks! I understand your example above, where one column is always 5 times as wide as the first. The only thing that was confusing me is that (in your first example) if string-length() returned a value of say 24, because you have a column with a maximum string length of 24 characters, then that column would be 24 times the width of all the rest... wouldn't it??? Using string-length() is indeed a bit rudimentary, in that it can, strictly speaking, only approach the actual text-width when a fixed-width font is used further on. If you want to refine that, you would need to take into account the font-metrics as well... Also, the proportions will only look nice if you have all rows of the same height (meaning: no line-breaks inside cells) Sure, this too can be compensated for. Say you have a max record width (sum of all respective max field widths) of 65, then each column gets its width according to a calculation like [( proportional-width / 65 ) * remaining-table-width ] I'm very poor with math, but this makes more sense to me (the paragraphs above) - using the maximum string lengths to calculate a proportional integer. I'll have to try to apply this in my application and see if I can better understand it through doing it! Other than that... could it be that you're a bit misled by the subtle difference between XSLT and XSL-FO (?) The result of string-length() is resolved long before FOP starts digesting the actual fo:table-column, so FOP sees nothing of the string-length() function. That's the XSLT processor's realm... Ya, XSLT just spits out the XSL-FO, which is then processed by FOP. I don't think I have a complete understanding of proportional-column-width() yet. I'll play around with it some more using the information you'd provided to me and see what I can learn. Thanks I'll post any success that I have! HTH! Greetz, Andreas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Alternatives to auto table layout
On Wed, 2004-05-26 at 10:08, James Earl wrote: On Tue, 2004-05-25 at 18:14, Andreas L. Delmelle wrote: Say you have a max record width (sum of all respective max field widths) of 65, then each column gets its width according to a calculation like [( proportional-width / 65 ) * remaining-table-width ] I'll post any success that I have! I'm not sure if I'm doing this right... but the following gave acceptable results: Columns (max field length): 1. 20 2. 10 3. 5 4. 1 5. 11 6. 6 Total: 53 Calculations: 1. (20 / 53) * 33 = 12.5 (e.g. proportional-column-width(12.5)) 2. (10 / 53) * 43 = 8.1 3. (5 / 53) * 48 = 4.5 4. (1 / 53) * 52 = 0.9 5. (11 / 53) * 42 = 8.7 6. (6 / 53) * 47 = 5.3 I've just tried this once so far, but it worked great. I have two templates set up. Once exports xsl-fo, while the other one exports html. The PDF generated by FOP looks almost identical in terms of the column widths. I just need to take into account the max length of the column heading when it is larger than the column data. James - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Alternatives to auto table layout
On Wed, 2004-05-26 at 11:12, James Earl wrote: On Wed, 2004-05-26 at 10:08, James Earl wrote: On Tue, 2004-05-25 at 18:14, Andreas L. Delmelle wrote: Say you have a max record width (sum of all respective max field widths) of 65, then each column gets its width according to a calculation like [( proportional-width / 65 ) * remaining-table-width ] I'll post any success that I have! I'm not sure if I'm doing this right... but the following gave acceptable results: Columns (max field length): 1. 20 2. 10 3. 5 4. 1 5. 11 6. 6 Total: 53 Calculations: 1. (20 / 53) * 33 = 12.5 (e.g. proportional-column-width(12.5)) 2. (10 / 53) * 43 = 8.1 3. (5 / 53) * 48 = 4.5 4. (1 / 53) * 52 = 0.9 5. (11 / 53) * 42 = 8.7 6. (6 / 53) * 47 = 5.3 I've just tried this once so far, but it worked great. I have two templates set up. Once exports xsl-fo, while the other one exports html. The PDF generated by FOP looks almost identical in terms of the column widths. I just need to take into account the max length of the column heading when it is larger than the column data. James Okay, I see now that a string length WILL WORK! Man do I feel stupid. :) Well, at least now I understand why! Man, this is easy, who needs auto table layout!!! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Alternatives to auto table layout
James Earl wrote: ... Well, at least now I understand why! Man, this is easy, who needs auto table layout!!! Well. If it's that easy, I don't understand why FOP can't do this on it's own rather than requiring special workarounds... Julian -- green/bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Alternatives to auto table layout
On Wed, 2004-05-26 at 11:32, Julian Reschke wrote: James Earl wrote: ... Well, at least now I understand why! Man, this is easy, who needs auto table layout!!! Well. If it's that easy, I don't understand why FOP can't do this on it's own rather than requiring special workarounds... Julian I was just thinking the same thing! :) I'm sure there's some technical explanation that's way over my head. James - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Alternatives to auto table layout
On Wed, 2004-05-26 at 11:36, James Earl wrote: On Wed, 2004-05-26 at 11:32, Julian Reschke wrote: James Earl wrote: ... Well, at least now I understand why! Man, this is easy, who needs auto table layout!!! Well. If it's that easy, I don't understand why FOP can't do this on it's own rather than requiring special workarounds... Julian I was just thinking the same thing! :) I'm sure there's some technical explanation that's way over my head. James I think I may have spoken too soon. It isn't quite working as well as I would like on some of my larger result sets, with more columns. James - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Alternatives to auto table layout
-Original Message- From: James Earl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi James, I'm not sure if I'm doing this right... but the following gave acceptable results: snip / Total: 53 So far, you're on the right track, but... Calculations: 1. (20 / 53) * 33 = 12.5 (e.g. proportional-column-width(12.5)) 2. (10 / 53) * 43 = 8.1 3. (5 / 53) * 48 = 4.5 4. (1 / 53) * 52 = 0.9 5. (11 / 53) * 42 = 8.7 6. (6 / 53) * 47 = 5.3 Errm... Actually, what I meant was (for a table with total width of, say 160mm) 1. (20 / 53) * 160mm = 60.38mm (= proportional-column-width(20)) 2. (10 / 53) * 160mm = 30.19mm (= proportional-column-width(10)) etc. The ratio between the two first columns is always 2 to 1 (between the first and third it will be 4 to 1, second to third again 2 to 1...) and this ratio will remain the same, regardless of the width the parent table has. The ratio between the width of a given column and the total width of the table is always ( proportion of the column ) to ( sum of all proportions ) The idea is to determine the proportions based on the max number of characters in the content of the column. Kind of a forced idea, though... It's not always guaranteed that, because content in column A is maximum 20 characters while column B has a maximum of 15, the respective columns will have a 4 to 3 ratio (--if you're using a proportional font, for example, in column A the maximum of 20 could refer to 20 letters 'i', while the other column has 15 letters 'M' that will take up more space) Anyway, look at it this way: at XSLT stage, *you* can anticipate things like these, without FOP ever needing to know anything about the actual content of the table-cells. Hope this makes it even clearer :) Cheers, Andreas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Alternatives to auto table layout
On Wed, 2004-05-26 at 11:50, Andreas L. Delmelle wrote: -Original Message- From: James Earl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi James, I'm not sure if I'm doing this right... but the following gave acceptable results: snip / Total: 53 So far, you're on the right track, but... Calculations: 1. (20 / 53) * 33 = 12.5 (e.g. proportional-column-width(12.5)) 2. (10 / 53) * 43 = 8.1 3. (5 / 53) * 48 = 4.5 4. (1 / 53) * 52 = 0.9 5. (11 / 53) * 42 = 8.7 6. (6 / 53) * 47 = 5.3 Errm... Actually, what I meant was (for a table with total width of, say 160mm) 1. (20 / 53) * 160mm = 60.38mm (= proportional-column-width(20)) 2. (10 / 53) * 160mm = 30.19mm (= proportional-column-width(10)) etc. The ratio between the two first columns is always 2 to 1 (between the first and third it will be 4 to 1, second to third again 2 to 1...) and this ratio will remain the same, regardless of the width the parent table has. The ratio between the width of a given column and the total width of the table is always ( proportion of the column ) to ( sum of all proportions ) The idea is to determine the proportions based on the max number of characters in the content of the column. Kind of a forced idea, though... It's not always guaranteed that, because content in column A is maximum 20 characters while column B has a maximum of 15, the respective columns will have a 4 to 3 ratio (--if you're using a proportional font, for example, in column A the maximum of 20 could refer to 20 letters 'i', while the other column has 15 letters 'M' that will take up more space) Anyway, look at it this way: at XSLT stage, *you* can anticipate things like these, without FOP ever needing to know anything about the actual content of the table-cells. Hope this makes it even clearer :) Yes, this is definitely clearer. With a table width of a 100% it's just a little easier. This is working very well for me now. Thanks for all your help! James Cheers, Andreas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Alternatives to auto table layout
-Original Message- From: Julian Reschke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Julian, James Earl wrote: ... Well, at least now I understand why! Man, this is easy, who needs auto table layout!!! Well. If it's that easy, I don't understand why FOP can't do this on it's own rather than requiring special workarounds... Well, you're welcome to have a go, if you feel like it :) (--and if you do, please patch it to the development version... I'm still not completely sure about how exactly to implement it over there) Big difference is: in XSLT you're just dealing with XML nodes, so if you know XML you're set. On top of that XSLT is a widely known standard, whereas the FOP API is only known to those who take the time to go strolling through the code and browse the dev pages... If you have an XSLT question, post it to Mulberry and suddenly 10 kind people will answer your hail. If you have a question about the FOP API, you can browse fop-dev pages or post it to fop-dev, but chances are that in the end you're still going to have to gather the necessary info to be able to answer your own question. (--Certainly no negative feelings about this, as IMHO the knowledge you gather tends to be more profound if you obtain it through self-study and a few helpful hints from co-committers, rather than having someone spell it out for you from A to Z) I guess what I mean is: there's books about XML, XSLT and Java, but you won't find a book about the FOP API. Cheers, Andreas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: spending too much time in PropertyList.findProperty
Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen wrote: It also appears that I have CPU and memory problems with FOP due to too complex tables. I suspect this is be cause row and cell areas are referenced from their corresponding FOs itself and are therefore kept in memory together with all their descendants until the page sequence is completely rendered (in contrast to all other area objects which are reclaimed after a page is rendered). There is a fix for this in CVS. J.Pietschmann - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
