This seems to be quite a limiting change for FOP 2.1 !
 
Thanks for the info!
 
Dean
 
 
In a message dated 1/18/2016 8:16:34 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
[email protected] writes:

Dean,

yes, I did this in our docbook xsl configuration layer  via changing 
admin.graphics.path. You may also want to set  img.src.path.

Hope this helps,

Torsten


On 18.01.2016  17:04, [email protected] wrote:
> Torsten
> Did you do this via  XSL? Or could you describe how you did this?
> Thanks
>  Dean
> In a message dated 1/18/2016 6:12:37 A.M. Pacific Standard  Time,
> [email protected] writes:
>
>   Hi Dean,
>
>     I made the same  experience recently, attempting a similar port from 
Fop
>   1.1 to Fop 2.1 of our DocBook documents.
>
>   Apparently, Fop 2.1 seems to be more strict about the format of  the url
>     argument. I managed to resolve this by  converting image references to
>     absolute file URIs  (e.g. file:///<path>/images/). I was not able to 
use
>   a relative path and folded.
>
>      Luckily, in my case mostly admonition graphics were affected, which  
I
>     could resolve by specifying an absolute  admon.graphics.path.
>
>     Hope this  helps,
>
>     Torsten
>
>   On 17.01.2016 02:29, [email protected] wrote:
>   > Hello!
>      > Thanks for  everyone's hard work on the FOP 2.1 release!
>      >  I have a stable Docbook system with FOP 1.1 and when I upgraded
>   to 2.1 I
>      > noticed an issue: It  appears that FOP cannot find the images in
>     the  new
>      > system.
>      >  [ERROR] FOUserAgent - Image not found. URI: images/redneck9.bmp.  
(See
>      > position 15:562)
>     > Which points to this line:
>      >  <fo:external-graphic src="url(images/redneck9.bmp)"  width="7cm"
>      > height="auto"  content-width="scale-to-fit"
>      content-height="scale-to-fit"
>      >  content-type="content-type:image/BMP" text-align="center"/>
>   > This is exactly the same file that FOP 1.1 processes just  fine and I
>      > looked to see if there were any  changes in the way I needed to
>     run  FOP
>      > but I could not see anything related to  that.
>      > Was there a change for FOP 2.1 that  would cause this?
>      > Thanks
>     > Dean Nelson
>
>
>      ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>   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]


Reply via email to