Re: [POLL] Your experience with FOP 0.90alpha1 so far???
Jeremias, Thanks for that, I set the height based on the result, not on what it should have been. I should be able to make it work. That means the blank line issue is the only actual bug, and probably an easy fix. Well done. Regards, Roland Jeremias Maerki wrote: Ah, now I get it, thanks. It's actually so that 0.20.5 is at fault here. :-) Just sum up the line-height for each line in the b-c. You get 146pt which is about 2.02in which is 5.13cm. You specified 4.7cm as the height for the b-c. 0.20.5 wasn't so systematically tested as the new code is. Even if I look directly at the area tree that 0.90 generates, the result is correct. On 15.12.2005 23:47:31 Roland Neilands wrote: Jeremias, Try the large block in 20.5 - it fits with no overflow. There seems to be extra space between lines in .90 Cheers, Roland Jeremias Maerki wrote: On 12.12.2005 07:19:31 Roland Neilands wrote: snip/ 5. There seems to be extra space inserted between lines now. This breaks existing stylesheets static-content layout - is there some default attribute I can turn off for this? (space-before, padding?) Can you please supply an example? Yes: It seems this is no longer respected as a blank line: fo:block #160;/fo:block Manuel Mall just told me he's going to look into this. This block-container overruns it's height by a full centimeter: Yes, I can see it overflows the available area. What exactly is the problem here? The current FOP Trunk (dev version) will notify you about the overflow in the log. The overflow property will now also clip the overflowing content is hidden is used. - # fo:block-container position=*absolute* left=*3.3cm* top=*0cm* width=*16cm* height=*4.7cm* fo:block font-size=*24pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*26pt* text-align=*start*Pulse Mining Systems Pty Ltd/fo:block fo:block font-size=*18pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*20pt* text-align=*start*as Managers and Agents for the Pulse Joint Venture/fo:block fo:block white-space-collapse=*false* font-size=*12pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*16pt* text-align=*start*123456 4900 49336732/fo:block fo:block white-space-collapse=*false* font-size=*10pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*12pt* text-align=*start*18 Day Street/fo:block fo:block white-space-collapse=*false* font-size=*10pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*12pt* text-align=*start*East Maitland NSW 2323/fo:block fo:block white-space-collapse=*false* font-size=*10pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*12pt* text-align=*start*Line 3/fo:block fo:block white-space-collapse=*false* font-size=*10pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*12pt* text-align=*start*Line 4/fo:block fo:block white-space-collapse=*false* font-size=*10pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*12pt* text-align=*start*Line 5/fo:block - # fo:block font-size=*10pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*12pt* text-align=*start* fo:basic-link external-destination=*mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] color=*blue*[EMAIL PROTECTED]/fo:basic-link /fo:block - # fo:block font-size=*10pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*12pt* text-align=*start* fo:basic-link external-destination=*http://www.pulsemining.com.au*; color=*blue*http://www.pulsemining.com.au/fo:basic-link /fo:block /fo:block-container snip/ Jeremias Maerki - 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] Jeremias Maerki - 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]
Re: [POLL] Your experience with FOP 0.90alpha1 so far???
On 12.12.2005 07:19:31 Roland Neilands wrote: snip/ 5. There seems to be extra space inserted between lines now. This breaks existing stylesheets static-content layout - is there some default attribute I can turn off for this? (space-before, padding?) Can you please supply an example? Yes: It seems this is no longer respected as a blank line: fo:block #160;/fo:block Manuel Mall just told me he's going to look into this. This block-container overruns it's height by a full centimeter: Yes, I can see it overflows the available area. What exactly is the problem here? The current FOP Trunk (dev version) will notify you about the overflow in the log. The overflow property will now also clip the overflowing content is hidden is used. - # fo:block-container position=*absolute* left=*3.3cm* top=*0cm* width=*16cm* height=*4.7cm* fo:block font-size=*24pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*26pt* text-align=*start*Pulse Mining Systems Pty Ltd/fo:block fo:block font-size=*18pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*20pt* text-align=*start*as Managers and Agents for the Pulse Joint Venture/fo:block fo:block white-space-collapse=*false* font-size=*12pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*16pt* text-align=*start*123456 4900 49336732/fo:block fo:block white-space-collapse=*false* font-size=*10pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*12pt* text-align=*start*18 Day Street/fo:block fo:block white-space-collapse=*false* font-size=*10pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*12pt* text-align=*start*East Maitland NSW 2323/fo:block fo:block white-space-collapse=*false* font-size=*10pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*12pt* text-align=*start*Line 3/fo:block fo:block white-space-collapse=*false* font-size=*10pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*12pt* text-align=*start*Line 4/fo:block fo:block white-space-collapse=*false* font-size=*10pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*12pt* text-align=*start*Line 5/fo:block - # fo:block font-size=*10pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*12pt* text-align=*start* fo:basic-link external-destination=*mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] color=*blue*[EMAIL PROTECTED]/fo:basic-link /fo:block - # fo:block font-size=*10pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*12pt* text-align=*start* fo:basic-link external-destination=*http://www.pulsemining.com.au*; color=*blue*http://www.pulsemining.com.au/fo:basic-link /fo:block /fo:block-container snip/ Jeremias Maerki - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [POLL] Your experience with FOP 0.90alpha1 so far???
Jeremias, Try the large block in 20.5 - it fits with no overflow. There seems to be extra space between lines in .90 Cheers, Roland Jeremias Maerki wrote: On 12.12.2005 07:19:31 Roland Neilands wrote: snip/ 5. There seems to be extra space inserted between lines now. This breaks existing stylesheets static-content layout - is there some default attribute I can turn off for this? (space-before, padding?) Can you please supply an example? Yes: It seems this is no longer respected as a blank line: fo:block #160;/fo:block Manuel Mall just told me he's going to look into this. This block-container overruns it's height by a full centimeter: Yes, I can see it overflows the available area. What exactly is the problem here? The current FOP Trunk (dev version) will notify you about the overflow in the log. The overflow property will now also clip the overflowing content is hidden is used. - # fo:block-container position=*absolute* left=*3.3cm* top=*0cm* width=*16cm* height=*4.7cm* fo:block font-size=*24pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*26pt* text-align=*start*Pulse Mining Systems Pty Ltd/fo:block fo:block font-size=*18pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*20pt* text-align=*start*as Managers and Agents for the Pulse Joint Venture/fo:block fo:block white-space-collapse=*false* font-size=*12pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*16pt* text-align=*start*123456 4900 49336732/fo:block fo:block white-space-collapse=*false* font-size=*10pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*12pt* text-align=*start*18 Day Street/fo:block fo:block white-space-collapse=*false* font-size=*10pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*12pt* text-align=*start*East Maitland NSW 2323/fo:block fo:block white-space-collapse=*false* font-size=*10pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*12pt* text-align=*start*Line 3/fo:block fo:block white-space-collapse=*false* font-size=*10pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*12pt* text-align=*start*Line 4/fo:block fo:block white-space-collapse=*false* font-size=*10pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*12pt* text-align=*start*Line 5/fo:block - # fo:block font-size=*10pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*12pt* text-align=*start* fo:basic-link external-destination=*mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] color=*blue*[EMAIL PROTECTED]/fo:basic-link /fo:block - # fo:block font-size=*10pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*12pt* text-align=*start* fo:basic-link external-destination=*http://www.pulsemining.com.au*; color=*blue*http://www.pulsemining.com.au/fo:basic-link /fo:block /fo:block-container snip/ Jeremias Maerki - 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]
Re: [POLL] Your experience with FOP 0.90alpha1 so far???
Ah, now I get it, thanks. It's actually so that 0.20.5 is at fault here. :-) Just sum up the line-height for each line in the b-c. You get 146pt which is about 2.02in which is 5.13cm. You specified 4.7cm as the height for the b-c. 0.20.5 wasn't so systematically tested as the new code is. Even if I look directly at the area tree that 0.90 generates, the result is correct. On 15.12.2005 23:47:31 Roland Neilands wrote: Jeremias, Try the large block in 20.5 - it fits with no overflow. There seems to be extra space between lines in .90 Cheers, Roland Jeremias Maerki wrote: On 12.12.2005 07:19:31 Roland Neilands wrote: snip/ 5. There seems to be extra space inserted between lines now. This breaks existing stylesheets static-content layout - is there some default attribute I can turn off for this? (space-before, padding?) Can you please supply an example? Yes: It seems this is no longer respected as a blank line: fo:block #160;/fo:block Manuel Mall just told me he's going to look into this. This block-container overruns it's height by a full centimeter: Yes, I can see it overflows the available area. What exactly is the problem here? The current FOP Trunk (dev version) will notify you about the overflow in the log. The overflow property will now also clip the overflowing content is hidden is used. - # fo:block-container position=*absolute* left=*3.3cm* top=*0cm* width=*16cm* height=*4.7cm* fo:block font-size=*24pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*26pt* text-align=*start*Pulse Mining Systems Pty Ltd/fo:block fo:block font-size=*18pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*20pt* text-align=*start*as Managers and Agents for the Pulse Joint Venture/fo:block fo:block white-space-collapse=*false* font-size=*12pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*16pt* text-align=*start*123456 4900 49336732/fo:block fo:block white-space-collapse=*false* font-size=*10pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*12pt* text-align=*start*18 Day Street/fo:block fo:block white-space-collapse=*false* font-size=*10pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*12pt* text-align=*start*East Maitland NSW 2323/fo:block fo:block white-space-collapse=*false* font-size=*10pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*12pt* text-align=*start*Line 3/fo:block fo:block white-space-collapse=*false* font-size=*10pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*12pt* text-align=*start*Line 4/fo:block fo:block white-space-collapse=*false* font-size=*10pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*12pt* text-align=*start*Line 5/fo:block - # fo:block font-size=*10pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*12pt* text-align=*start* fo:basic-link external-destination=*mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] color=*blue*[EMAIL PROTECTED]/fo:basic-link /fo:block - # fo:block font-size=*10pt* font-weight=*bold* font-family=*serif* line-height=*12pt* text-align=*start* fo:basic-link external-destination=*http://www.pulsemining.com.au*; color=*blue*http://www.pulsemining.com.au/fo:basic-link /fo:block /fo:block-container snip/ Jeremias Maerki - 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] Jeremias Maerki - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [POLL] Your experience with FOP 0.90alpha1 so far???
Roland,
that's exactly the kind of stuff I wanted to hear. Thank you very much.
Some comments inline...
On 09.12.2005 00:57:47 Roland Neilands wrote:
Jeremias,
I haven't test it thoroughly yet, but you asked, so but here's what I've
seen:
1. Images are not scaled overrun block-container height width. The
images seem washed-out pixelated (gif). This is a stopper, I was
hoping it would work better than 20.5.
fo:block-container height=3cm width=3cm top=0cm left=0cm
position=absolute
fo:block
fo:external-graphic height=3cm width=3cm
src=file:images/{$logo} scaling=uniform/
/fo:block
Andreas and Manuel already gave tips here. FOP 0.20.5 was incomplete and
somewhat wrong in its implementation here.
2. I had to move region-before after region-body in the
simple-page-master. This makes no sense ;), but I assume this is from
the spec. Not a problem.
3. NB. Had to replace fo:table/ with
fo:table-cellfo:block//fo:table-cell
Both 2 and 3 are compliance issues. From the command-line, you can use
-r to enable relaxed validation which will cause FOP to be less strict
about the rules established by the spec. In Java code you can set
setStrictValidation(false) on the FOUserAgent.
http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/0.90/embedding.html#config-internal
4. No line numbers on errors anymore? This was very useful for debugging
stylesheets.
We have line numbers but not all error messages carry them with them,
yet. Help and patches are welcome. I guess this is work in progress.
5. There seems to be extra space inserted between lines now. This breaks
existing stylesheets static-content layout - is there some default
attribute I can turn off for this? (space-before, padding?)
Can you please supply an example?
6. PCL - no chance of at least keeping the old renderer?
No, the renderer's interface is not 100% the same. PCL is on my radar
but its resurrection will not happen through my hand before February
2006. An alternative: Create PDF and convert that to PCL using
GhostScript (depending on your licensing situation).
FWIW: I know these are mostly my compliance issues, but a FAQ on these
kind of differences would help greatly.
Does this mean that the error messages are not good enough? Just curious.
Cheers,
Roland
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Dear users of Apache FOP,
version 0.90alpha1 is now two weeks old. In this time we've already
received a number of bug reports and even some patches. Thanks to
those involved and to everybody who has sent us feedback on the new
version so far.
Still, it's been a little quiet for my taste. :-) So, I'd like to ask
everybody who has tried 0.90alpha1 (or the latest FOP Trunk) so far to
tell us his/her first impression of the new code. Is it crap beyond what
is thought possible? *g* If there are problems, what are they (except
those we already documented, of course)? Or could it even be that you've
already rendered a few non-trivial documents and it didn't even look
that bad? We'd really appreciate some more feedback.
If there are people who would like to contribute more than bug reports
and feedback, but don't know how, please speak up. We can always use
additional help and will be glad to get you on the right track.
Thanks,
Jeremias Maerki
Jeremias Maerki
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [POLL] Your experience with FOP 0.90alpha1 so far???
I've just fixed that. Thanks for spotting it. http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=355401view=rev As a little thank you I've implemented that XSLT parameter you've suggested last month. See: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlgraphics-fop-users/200511.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=355411view=rev On 09.12.2005 06:09:28 Roland Neilands wrote: 7. It seems to have the old bug of leaving zero sized files around after errors Jeremias Maerki - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [POLL] Your experience with FOP 0.90alpha1 so far???
I think I need to correct myself. The way the line number information is implemented it's only available during FO tree building and validation but not after that. I was just working on reporting overflow conditions during layout where I wanted to make sure that as much context information is available as possible. H. On 09.12.2005 09:28:27 Jeremias Maerki wrote: snip/ 4. No line numbers on errors anymore? This was very useful for debugging stylesheets. We have line numbers but not all error messages carry them with them, yet. Help and patches are welcome. I guess this is work in progress. snip/ Jeremias Maerki - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [POLL] Your experience with FOP 0.90alpha1 so far???
Hi, Jeremias, I have run 0.90alpha1 on a couple of my larger documents, and I have bumped into only two issues (one of which causes real trouble for me): 1. Images are not scaling to fit the space in which they are placed. I can live with that, because I can go scale the images by hand before FOP picks them up. I'm just lazy and would rather not need to do that. 2. The other issue is my showstopper: No bookmarks. My readers are spoiled, and I'll hear some very serious howling if I take away their bookmarks. I either need an extension like fox or support for the 1.1 draft bookmark, bookmark-tree, and bookmark-title instructions. I could cut over to the new version right now if I could create bookmarks with it. Other than that, I had to do some tinkering with transforms to get the right output with the new version, but it was no big deal and is to be expected with a major new version. (I pretty much think of FOP 0.20.* and FOP 0.90 as two different processors, so I expected some differences.) Thanks for asking. J - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [POLL] Your experience with FOP 0.90alpha1 so far???
Hi J You should really read the Upgrading document. It's all there: http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/0.90/upgrading.html Both problems are easily solvable: 1. A content-width=scale-to-fit will do what you want. It was 0.20.5 that was wrong here. BTW, adding the scale-to-fit will make the whole thing look the same in 0.20.5 and 0.90, because 0.20.5 simply ignores content-width. 2. The XSL 1.1 bookmarks are implemented and produce PDF bookmarks. What I don't understand is what you mean by tinkering with transforms. Would you please explain? On 09.12.2005 16:25:55 JBryant wrote: Hi, Jeremias, I have run 0.90alpha1 on a couple of my larger documents, and I have bumped into only two issues (one of which causes real trouble for me): 1. Images are not scaling to fit the space in which they are placed. I can live with that, because I can go scale the images by hand before FOP picks them up. I'm just lazy and would rather not need to do that. 2. The other issue is my showstopper: No bookmarks. My readers are spoiled, and I'll hear some very serious howling if I take away their bookmarks. I either need an extension like fox or support for the 1.1 draft bookmark, bookmark-tree, and bookmark-title instructions. I could cut over to the new version right now if I could create bookmarks with it. Other than that, I had to do some tinkering with transforms to get the right output with the new version, but it was no big deal and is to be expected with a major new version. (I pretty much think of FOP 0.20.* and FOP 0.90 as two different processors, so I expected some differences.) Thanks for asking. J Jeremias Maerki - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [POLL] Your experience with FOP 0.90alpha1 so far???
I did read the upgrading page. It doesn't mention scaling. 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. 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. 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). Jay Bryant Bryant Communication Services (presently consulting at Synergistic Solution Technologies) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [POLL] Your experience with FOP 0.90alpha1 so far???
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]
Re: [POLL] Your experience with FOP 0.90alpha1 so far???
On Dec 9, 2005, at 17:33, Jeremias Maerki wrote: On 09.12.2005 17:06:00 JBryant wrote: 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. Just guessing here, but since content-width=scale-to-fit will scale the image to the width of the content rectangle, maybe specifying a length-range (min/opt/max) for the inline-progression-dimension could help...? (The formatter may adjust the ipd if necessary, then scales the image to fit that...) Cheers, Andreas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [POLL] Your experience with FOP 0.90alpha1 so far???
Yeah, that's more or less what the formatter should be doing. The problem is that i-f-o and e-g both only create a Knuth box which has a fixed size. No shrink/stretch there, yet. On 09.12.2005 17:47:13 Andreas L Delmelle wrote: On Dec 9, 2005, at 17:33, Jeremias Maerki wrote: On 09.12.2005 17:06:00 JBryant wrote: 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. Just guessing here, but since content-width=scale-to-fit will scale the image to the width of the content rectangle, maybe specifying a length-range (min/opt/max) for the inline-progression-dimension could help...? (The formatter may adjust the ipd if necessary, then scales the image to fit that...) Jeremias Maerki - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scaling images (was Re: [POLL] Your experience with FOP 0.90alpha1 so far???)
Well, now I'm investigating how to get the content-width of the image and see if that exceeds the content-width of the content rectangle that will hold the image. Support for the scale-down-to-fit value for the content-width property would work nicely. If I were to request an enhancement, that one would be high on my list. Jay Bryant Bryant Communication Services - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [POLL] Your experience with FOP 0.90alpha1 so far???
so I'll let you know more detail soon (later today).
I had to add width=100% to my fo:table instructions to avoid a warning
message.
I'm more than a bit of a purist (and a perfectionist, too), so I don't
think I'm done coding until I get 0 warnings. So, 0.90alpha1 worked on
most of my files (the ones that don't involve large images), but I had to
tweak my transforms to clean up warnings from tables.
I am pleased to report that bookmarks work perfectly.
Also, the new keeps are a huge code reducer for me. For example,
xsl:choose
xsl:when test=@break='yes'
fo:block xsl:use-attribute-sets=detail id={generate-id()}
break-before=page
xsl:value-of select=$display-string/
/fo:block
xsl:apply-templates/
/xsl:when
xsl:otherwise
fo:table table-layout=fixed
fo:table-column column-width=6.5in/
fo:table-body
fo:table-row keep-with-next=always
fo:table-cell
fo:block xsl:use-attribute-sets=detail
id={generate-id()}
xsl:value-of select=$display-string/
/fo:block
/fo:table-cell
/fo:table-row
fo:table-row
fo:table-cell
xsl:apply-templates select=child::*[1]/
/fo:table-cell
/fo:table-row
/fo:table-body
/fo:table
xsl:apply-templates select=child::*[position() 1]/
/xsl:otherwise
/xsl:choose
becomes
fo:block xsl:use-attribute-sets=detail keep-with-next=always
id={generate-id()}
xsl:if test=@break='yes'
xsl:attribute name=break-before select='page'/
/xsl:if
xsl:value-of select=$display-string/
/fo:block
xsl:apply-templates/
That's a tremendous gain in readability (and hence maintainability next
year) and must do at least something to improve memory usage and
processing speed.
So, as soon as I can get past the image scaling problem, I'll be set to
use the new FOP. I can scale the images by hand in an image editor if need
be, but I'd like to see if I can get content-width=scale-to-fit to work
first.
To sum up, the new FOP is VERY nice and will soon do good things for my
document production system.
Thanks large.
Jay Bryant
Bryant Communication Services
(presently consulting at Synergistic Solution Technologies)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [POLL] Your experience with FOP 0.90alpha1 so far???
Jeremias,
I haven't test it thoroughly yet, but you asked, so but here's what I've
seen:
1. Images are not scaled overrun block-container height width. The
images seem washed-out pixelated (gif). This is a stopper, I was
hoping it would work better than 20.5.
fo:block-container height=3cm width=3cm top=0cm left=0cm
position=absolute
fo:block
fo:external-graphic height=3cm width=3cm
src=file:images/{$logo} scaling=uniform/
/fo:block
2. I had to move region-before after region-body in the
simple-page-master. This makes no sense ;), but I assume this is from
the spec. Not a problem.
3. NB. Had to replace fo:table/ with
fo:table-cellfo:block//fo:table-cell
4. No line numbers on errors anymore? This was very useful for debugging
stylesheets.
5. There seems to be extra space inserted between lines now. This breaks
existing stylesheets static-content layout - is there some default
attribute I can turn off for this? (space-before, padding?)
6. PCL - no chance of at least keeping the old renderer?
FWIW: I know these are mostly my compliance issues, but a FAQ on these
kind of differences would help greatly.
Cheers,
Roland
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Dear users of Apache FOP,
version 0.90alpha1 is now two weeks old. In this time we've already
received a number of bug reports and even some patches. Thanks to
those involved and to everybody who has sent us feedback on the new
version so far.
Still, it's been a little quiet for my taste. :-) So, I'd like to ask
everybody who has tried 0.90alpha1 (or the latest FOP Trunk) so far to
tell us his/her first impression of the new code. Is it crap beyond what
is thought possible? *g* If there are problems, what are they (except
those we already documented, of course)? Or could it even be that you've
already rendered a few non-trivial documents and it didn't even look
that bad? We'd really appreciate some more feedback.
If there are people who would like to contribute more than bug reports
and feedback, but don't know how, please speak up. We can always use
additional help and will be glad to get you on the right track.
Thanks,
Jeremias Maerki
-
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]
Re: [POLL] Your experience with FOP 0.90alpha1 so far???
On Dec 9, 2005, at 00:57, Roland Neilands wrote:
Roland,
Concerning 1)
1. Images are not scaled overrun block-container height width.
The images seem washed-out pixelated (gif). This is a stopper, I
was hoping it would work better than 20.5.
fo:block-container height=3cm width=3cm top=0cm left=0cm
position=absolute
fo:block
fo:external-graphic height=3cm width=3cm src=file:images/
{$logo} scaling=uniform/
/fo:block
Have you tried playing with 'content-height' and 'content-width'
instead of plain height/width?
Check http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37136 it may help
as well.
Cheers,
Andreas
Manuel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [POLL] Your experience with FOP 0.90alpha1 so far???
Jeremias,
7. It seems to have the old bug of leaving zero sized files around after
errors
Cheers,
Roland
Roland Neilands wrote:
Jeremias,
I haven't test it thoroughly yet, but you asked, so but here's what
I've seen:
1. Images are not scaled overrun block-container height width. The
images seem washed-out pixelated (gif). This is a stopper, I was
hoping it would work better than 20.5.
fo:block-container height=3cm width=3cm top=0cm left=0cm
position=absolute
fo:block
fo:external-graphic height=3cm width=3cm
src=file:images/{$logo} scaling=uniform/
/fo:block
2. I had to move region-before after region-body in the
simple-page-master. This makes no sense ;), but I assume this is from
the spec. Not a problem.
3. NB. Had to replace fo:table/ with
fo:table-cellfo:block//fo:table-cell
4. No line numbers on errors anymore? This was very useful for
debugging stylesheets.
5. There seems to be extra space inserted between lines now. This
breaks existing stylesheets static-content layout - is there some
default attribute I can turn off for this? (space-before, padding?)
6. PCL - no chance of at least keeping the old renderer?
FWIW: I know these are mostly my compliance issues, but a FAQ on these
kind of differences would help greatly.
Cheers,
Roland
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Dear users of Apache FOP,
version 0.90alpha1 is now two weeks old. In this time we've already
received a number of bug reports and even some patches. Thanks to
those involved and to everybody who has sent us feedback on the new
version so far.
Still, it's been a little quiet for my taste. :-) So, I'd like to ask
everybody who has tried 0.90alpha1 (or the latest FOP Trunk) so far to
tell us his/her first impression of the new code. Is it crap beyond what
is thought possible? *g* If there are problems, what are they (except
those we already documented, of course)? Or could it even be that you've
already rendered a few non-trivial documents and it didn't even look
that bad? We'd really appreciate some more feedback.
If there are people who would like to contribute more than bug reports
and feedback, but don't know how, please speak up. We can always use
additional help and will be glad to get you on the right track.
Thanks,
Jeremias Maerki
-
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]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
