I got the results I was looking for, not by using fo:external-graphics, but by placing the graphic in the @background-image for the fo:table-cell. Unfortunately, the background-position* attributes aren't working (the FOP Compliance page[1] does indicate 'yes' for Basic support, but 'no' Extended support).
One frustration, I had to take my 'pretty' 300dpi JPG image and convert it to 72dpi, because FOP appears to render my 300dpi image at 72dpi, making the graphic larger than the space it occupies. The XSL-FO spec does not indicate any sort of background-image 'scale' or background-content-width attribute.
I hope this information helps someone!
Web Maestro Clay
[1] FOP Compliance Page - background-position-horizontal:
http://xml.apache.org/fop/compliance.html#fo-property-background- position-horizontal
On Aug 26, 2004, at 8:45 AM, Clay Leeds wrote:
UPDATE:
I've noticed, that as I increase the fo:region-after @extent from 3.5cm to 4cm, the MIDDLE & BOTTOM images get smaller. There is no change to the size of the TOP image in either case.
FWIW, the TOP and MIDDLE images are completely within the fo:region-before @extent (height); the BOTTOM image 'starts' in the fo:region-before @extent, and 'ends' in the fo:region-body portion.
If this is confusing, I'll post something to bugzilla. I hesitate to call this a bug yet...
Web Maestro Clay
On Aug 25, 2004, at 2:55 PM, Clay Leeds wrote:PROBLEM
I have 3 graphics (each 35px wide w/ rotated red text w/ white margins) in an fo:region-end and I have a strange problem: the TOP graphic renders at slightly larger than the correct size; the MIDDLE graphic renders correctly; the BOTTOM graphic renders smaller than the correct size.
I've tried using every combination imaginable of width/height, content-width/content-height, both ON, OFF, width + content-width, etc. and nothing works. There isn't a problem with HEIGHT, because there is ample space on either side of each image.
I was finally able to work around the problem by futzing with the width of each image so the TOP is now 53x260 wide, MIDDLE is 36x1181, BOTTOM is 32x1360.
<snip>
I am actually satisfied with the workaround, but I wanted to report it and wondered if anyone has an idea about why this is occurring?
Clay Leeds - [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]
