On Oct 4, 2007, at 18:46, Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
That, unfortunately, I can't help you with. Maybe there is some
parameter you can set in Docbook that would take care of this, but
my experience with Docbook is rather limited, so I wouldn't know if
there is such a parameter and what it'
On Oct 3, 2007, at 21:55, Steve Ebersole wrote:
Hi Steve
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 02:47:04 pm Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
It's caused by the keep-together on the table's containing block.
Remove that property and the table gets rendered very nicely. Would
look even slightly better with a ke
On Oct 3, 2007, at 21:53, Steve Ebersole wrote:
I know you are not trying to, but at some point you switched to
speaking a
language I do not understand ;)
But I did a search.
Good thinking. :-)
Is something this what you mean?
http://sourceware.org/ml/docbook-apps/2004-q1/msg00232.htm
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 02:47:04 pm Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
> On Oct 3, 2007, at 03:53, Steve Ebersole wrote:
>
>[Me:]
>
> >> Well, in the meantime, I did end up copy/pasting the entire
> >> configuration.xml into the location of the xi:include node, fiddled
> >> some more, and I see the
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 02:47:04 pm Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
> On Oct 3, 2007, at 03:53, Steve Ebersole wrote:
>
>[Me:]
>
> >> Well, in the meantime, I did end up copy/pasting the entire
> >> configuration.xml into the location of the xi:include node, fiddled
> >> some more, and I see the
On Oct 3, 2007, at 03:53, Steve Ebersole wrote:
[Me:]
Well, in the meantime, I did end up copy/pasting the entire
configuration.xml into the location of the xi:include node, fiddled
some more, and I see the problem now. Starting from Table 1.3 onward,
correct?
Correct
OK, managed to trim
> Well, in the meantime, I did end up copy/pasting the entire
> configuration.xml into the location of the xi:include node, fiddled
> some more, and I see the problem now. Starting from Table 1.3 onward,
> correct?
Correct
-
To un
On Oct 2, 2007, at 21:26, Steve Ebersole wrote:
The other issue is a problem I believe. There is only one
XInclude, which is
needed as it is what contains all the table definitions. I assume
it is a
problem resolving the needed chapter on your system. Not sure why
though.
This should
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 01:37:27 pm Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
> On Oct 2, 2007, at 19:31, Steve Ebersole wrote:
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> > Attached is the simplified docbook and xslt.
> >
> > Thanks for taking a look.
>
> No problem, although...
>
> I've tried to run the XSLT-step separately, and recei
On Oct 2, 2007, at 20:37, Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
Forgot to add: the driving stylesheet used was pdf/main-pdf.xsl.
Using common/basic.xsl did produce the XML header, but no root node
(= a plain-text file).
Cheers
Andreas
---
On Oct 2, 2007, at 19:31, Steve Ebersole wrote:
Hi Steve,
Attached is the simplified docbook and xslt.
Thanks for taking a look.
No problem, although...
I've tried to run the XSLT-step separately, and received a couple of
warnings/errors, like:
WARNING: javax.xml.transform.TransformerEx
On Sep 27, 2007, at 15:58, Steve Ebersole wrote:
It's not all that easy. I am building the docs via the Maven plugin
for DocBook handing that I developed as part of migrating Hibernate
over to Maven.
In addition to my basic lack of understanding of DocBook, FOP,
XSLT, etc I am also a noob
It's not all that easy. I am building the docs via the Maven plugin for
DocBook handing that I developed as part of migrating Hibernate over to Maven.
In addition to my basic lack of understanding of DocBook, FOP, XSLT, etc I am
also a noob at Maven, so of course I am the perfect person to wri
On Sep 26, 2007, at 04:17, Steve Ebersole wrote:
Hi
Can you please provide a small FO sample showing the problem? Not the
source DocBook file (or, at least, not only), but the result of
the XSLT
transformation.
I do not write an intermediate FO file.
Good! As a general rule, nobody reall
On Monday 24 September 2007 02:05:02 am Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> Steve Ebersole a écrit :
> > I have some DocBook sources I have been rendering via fop-0.20.5. On
> > attempts to upgrade to either 0.93 or 0.94,
>
> Very good idea! ;-)
>
> > however, some of my tables render "goofy"
On Monday 24 September 2007 02:05:02 am Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> Steve Ebersole a écrit :
> > I have some DocBook sources I have been rendering via fop-0.20.5. On
> > attempts to upgrade to either 0.93 or 0.94,
>
> Very good idea! ;-)
>
> > however, some of my tables render "goofy"
Hi Steve,
Steve Ebersole a écrit :
> I have some DocBook sources I have been rendering via fop-0.20.5. On
> attempts
> to upgrade to either 0.93 or 0.94,
Very good idea! ;-)
> however, some of my tables render "goofy". In particular, two
>phenomena I have noted:
>
> 1) Tables that span a
sorry cant remember which email address I used to register...
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: 0.93/0.94 and tables
Date: Friday 21 September 2007
From: Steve Ebersole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: fop-users@xmlgraphics.apache.org
I have some DocBook sources I have been ren
I have some DocBook sources I have been rendering via fop-0.20.5. On attempts
to upgrade to either 0.93 or 0.94, however, some of my tables render "goofy".
In particular, two phenomena I have noted:
1) Tables that span a page break. These get rendered "off page".
2) Quite a few of the tables
19 matches
Mail list logo
