From: Jeremias Maerki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A bugfix is in CVS now.
snip/
Thanks Jeremias, thats Excellent news.
Chris
_
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger
Moving to fop-dev because it gets technical...
After a lot of searching I think I know what's wrong. It's not the
ASCII-85 filter behaving wrong. Chris' JPEG images contain trailing
zero's after the FFD9 (EOI, end of image marker) which fill the images
up to 16384 bytes. Now, I guess the error
A bugfix is in CVS now.
On 01.07.2003 16:21:50 Chris Bowditch wrote:
I'm having trouble with Postscript generated by FOP 0.20.5rc3a. I have a
document containing some JPEG images. The postscript file is produced
without error with -d option specified. However, both Adobe Distiller and
On 02.07.2003 11:06:35 Chris Bowditch wrote:
Thanks for the update Jeremias. I would be grateful if you could shed any
light on this.
One thing I dont understand is what is different about the JPEG files I am
using, compared to the ones you mentioned that you used in testing (in past
Could you send a sample fo and jpeg image?
-Original Message-
From: Chris Bowditch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 9:22 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: JPEG images in Postscript
Hi All,
I'm having trouble with Postscript generated by FOP 0.20.5rc3a. I have a
Almost suspected itI believe it's a bug in the ASCII-85 encoder
which I've fixed in the redesign but haven't been able to upload, yet.
I'll be able to fix the bug for the maintenance branch later this week.
In the meantime you can locally patch PSRenderer.java:
Change /ASCII85Decode to
Most probably, yes. It's a bug that only surfaces with a handful of
files. That's probably the reason why it didn't come up before.
On 01.07.2003 17:23:38 Clay Leeds wrote:
On 7/1/2003 8:18 AM, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Almost suspected itI believe it's a bug in the ASCII-85 encoder
which
Correction: I've just dropped my current ASCII85OutputStream in the
maintenance branch but the bug persists. There's must be another one.
Will investigate.
On 01.07.2003 17:18:20 Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Almost suspected itI believe it's a bug in the ASCII-85 encoder
which I've fixed in the
