On 09.12.2005 17:06:00 JBryant wrote: > I did read the upgrading page. It doesn't mention scaling.
Well, it mentions instream-foreign-object and a Buzilla entry that explains a lot there. But maybe we need to make that a little clearer. Sounds like that FAQ Roland suggested might yet be necessary. > > 1. A content-width="scale-to-fit" will do what you want. > > Well, no, it won't, actually. The trouble is that I don't want images that > are less than the width of the page to be expanded to the width of the > page. The old behavior of scaling images that exceeded the size of the > container to fit the container and leaving smaller images as is worked > perfectly. It may not have met the spec, but I regarded it as a feature of > FOP, as it saved me time I would otherwise spend scaling images by hand. > Anyway, that won't stop me from using the new version. I'll just scale all > the images and go merrily onward. Ok, I understand. I didn't know that FOP 0.20.5 behaves like that. I've done a few quick tests to see if I can get the effect you need but haven't succeeded. I'll look into it again later. > > 2. The XSL 1.1 bookmarks are implemented and produce PDF bookmarks. > > A message between developers that went by around the time of the 0.90alpha > release made me think they weren't yet implemented. I can't readily find > the message now, and I don't want to spend a lot of time looking for it. > Anyway, I guess I had a mistaken impression, so I'll try out the new > bookmark toys and see what I get. Also, the compliance page doesn't list > the three bookmark instructions. D'oh. We forgot to update the compliance page for the XSL 1.1 properties. I'll fix that. > > What I don't understand is what you mean by "tinkering with > > transforms". Would you please explain? > > The day you released 0.90alpha, I tried it against some of my documents > and found that I had to adjust some of my XSLT transforms to meet the > requirements of the new version. I don't recall exactly what I had to > adjust at this point. If memory serves, they were small changes caused by > 0.90alpha's tighter conformance to the spec. I'm about to do it again to > test the new bookmark instructions, so I'll let you know more detail soon > (later today). The relaxed validation setting might help you there. But only a little. Jeremias Maerki --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
