Re: why 'blank' page is not 'last' page with force-page-count=odd
Hi Guillaume, guillaume levrero a écrit : Hi Chris, I tried the FO again with the latest foptrunk (554616), and I get the same output. Should I open a new bug entry ? Yes, please, I can reproduce the problem. Obviously there is still something wrong somewhere. Thanks, Vincent - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: RTF-Output with FOP 0.93 looks terrible
Hi Adrian, sorry for my late reply. Seems my email-provider are sorting out some messages. I just find the list on nabbles.com. I used Microsoft Word to display the generated RTF-Output. So I assumed Microsoft Word would display the RTF in the correct way. But seems it didn't. Because of your question, which application I'm using, I just used OpenOffice and hey it looks good - relatively ;-) Page breaks doesn't work.There are no page numbers in the TOC, but links to the chapters are fine :-) In every case tables have a width of 3,53cm. But shouldn't they display on the whole available width of the page?! I'm using processing-instructions at my xml file to set e.g. the last page number or background-colors. These settings are displayed correctly in the PDF-Output, so the FO seems to be correctly. It supposed to be missing features for generating RTF with FOP. Thanks, Best Regards, Kerstin ## Hi Kerstin, Sorry but could you be a little more descriptive of the problem you are having? Providing some FO source examples would be of great help in examining any problems you are experiencing with the RTF output. Incidentally which RTF viewing application are you using to display/test the RTF output? Cheers, Adrian. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm using FOP 0.93 to generate e.g. PDF from DocBook-XML with DocBook-XSL. Everything looks fine in PDF. 71 sites are generated in PDF :-))) But the RTF-Output just looks terrible and has about 1900 !!! sites. Seems on every page is one line or one table row printed out. The content (e.g. lines) should be keep together or something else. Is still working on this feature or has i just configure something to make it work better? Thanks, Kerstin *BE A BETTER WELTENBUMMLER:* Jetzt Frage stellen und einen von 44 iPods gewinnen! http://de.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48734/*http://de.promotions.yahoo.com/clever/be-a-better/weltenbummler.html - Alles was der Gesundheit und Entspannung dient.BE A BETTER MEDIZINMANN!
Re: RTF-Output with FOP 0.93 looks terrible
Hi Jeremias, you are correct: RTF is a terrible format. But seems to be the only way to get a modifiable document. There are also tools like which convert PDF to Word-Documents. But these tools also had the problem in correct converting PDF. In this case I'm using DocBook to create complex documentations. With the DocBook-Stylesheets I want to generate e.g. HTML, PDF and also an for Microsoft Word applicable Document. Because of Adrian's question of what RTF viewing application I'm using (I used Microsoft Word), I used OpenOffice and hey it looks good - relativley. Only some XSL-FO-Features are missing (I described them in my answer of Adrians answer). I will create a small DocBook-Document with some XSL-FO-Features which shows the occured problems. So maybe we find a solution ;-) Thanks a lot. Best Regards, Kerstin ### Let me start by stating that RTF is a terrible format to begin with (well, that's a personal opinion). Generally, it's not possible to map every feature in XSL-FO into RTF. But then, RTF is probably also the weakest output format in Apache FOP. I would only recommend RTF output for relatively simple business letters where people have to do some modifications before they are sent to the client. I'd be interested in the use case you have to convert DocBook to RTF. Please note that the RTF output is optimized for Microsoft Word. It will definitely look terrible in OpenOffice. On 28.06.2007 14:04:32 leeloo5e79-devel wrote: I'm using FOP 0.93 to generate e.g. PDF from DocBook-XML with DocBook-XSL. Everything looks fine in PDF. 71 sites are generated in PDF :-))) But the RTF-Output just looks terrible and has about 1900 !!! sites. Seems on every page is one line or one table row printed out. The content (e.g. lines) should be keep together or something else. Is still working on this feature or has i just configure something to make it work better? Thanks, Kerstin Jeremias Maerki - Yahoo! Messenger - kostenlos* mit Familie und Freunden von PC zu PC telefonieren.
Re: RTF-Output with FOP 0.93 looks terrible
Hi, leeloo5e79-devel yahoo de a écrit : Hi Jeremias, you are correct: RTF is a terrible format. But seems to be the only way to get a modifiable document. There are also tools like which convert PDF to Word-Documents. But these tools also had the problem in correct converting PDF. In this case I'm using DocBook to create complex documentations. With the DocBook-Stylesheets I want to generate e.g. HTML, PDF and also an for Microsoft Word applicable Document. If you want to generate a modifiable format from DocBook you will probably have much more success with the docbook2odf [1] or the roundtrip part of the DocBook stylesheets. I haven't looked at either of those. The link below might be interesting. The DocBook stylesheets allow to convert DocBook to WordML (and also ODF now, I believe) and vice-versa. Have a look at the docbook-apps@ archives and the DocBook website. Anyway, if I had to produce modifiable documents from DocBook sources I would certainly invest my time on such solutions rather than dealing with RTF. [1] http://open.comsultia.com/docbook2odf/ HTH, Vincent - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why 'blank' page is not 'last' page with force-page-count=odd
Hi Guillaume, Yes I also verified this problem. This is a different bug to the other force-page-count problem which was fixed (http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42779). Please open a new bug entry. Adrian. Vincent Hennebert wrote: Hi Guillaume, guillaume levrero a écrit : Hi Chris, I tried the FO again with the latest foptrunk (554616), and I get the same output. Should I open a new bug entry ? Yes, please, I can reproduce the problem. Obviously there is still something wrong somewhere. Thanks, Vincent - 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: why 'blank' page is not 'last' page with force-page-count=odd
Adrian Cumiskey wrote: Hi Guillaume, Yes I also verified this problem. This is a different bug to the other force-page-count problem which was fixed (http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42779). Please open a new bug entry. Thanks Adrian. I think we can summarise this bug as: page-position=last doesn't work with force-page-count. Chris - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why 'blank' page is not 'last' page with force-page-count=odd
On Jul 10, 2007, at 11:24, Adrian Cumiskey wrote: Hi Adrian Yes I also verified this problem. This is a different bug to the other force-page-count problem which was fixed (http:// issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42779). Please open a new bug entry. I'm not following... bug 42779 is still open. Just had a quick look, and the problem indeed still exists. Cheers Andreas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Left align glossterm instead of left justify
Hello,
I'm using this DocBook customization:
xsl:template match=glossterm mode=glossary.as.list
xsl:variable name=id
xsl:call-template name=object.id/
/xsl:variable
fo:block text-align=left
fo:inline id={$id}xsl:apply-templates//fo:inline
/fo:block
/xsl:template
It left aligns glossterm, but it also has the side effect of completely
screwing up acronyms. It makes acronyms appear a line beneath the gloss
term and also seems to make acronym spill over to the next page without
keeping together with the rest of the glossentry.
Can you help me with a non intrusive way of left aligning glossterm without
breaking anything?
Thank you,
Joseph Caporale
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Left-align-%3Cglossterm%3E-instead-of-left-justify-tf4058693.html#a11530106
Sent from the FOP - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
