Re: Problem with CDATA in the input XML-file

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course! We forgot the < and > before and after the CDATA. We used a parser (jdom) that could handle this without any complaints (less strict) and I was suprised to se the CDATA statement in the output (pdf-file). Thank you! In the context of XML parsing, "less stri

Re: representative example needed

I am maintaining an XSLT that converts RFC2629-style RFC documents to FO (thus, there's a good set of sources to try, but only a limited subset of XSL:FO is actually used). For instance, check . To support several distinct FO processors, I've been g

Re: Alternatives to auto table layout

James Earl wrote: ... Well, at least now I understand why! Man, this is easy, who needs auto table layout!!! Well. If it's that easy, I don't understand why FOP can't do this on it's own rather than requiring special workarounds... Julian -- bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+4925128

Re: Using controls caracters

CHEKROUN Jerome wrote: is there a wway to modifie the xml parser to make all available ? If you did it, it wouldn't be an XML parser anymore. Best regards, Julian -- bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 - To

Re: Non-visible characters in embedded fonts

Petr van Blokland wrote: Dear list, happy 2004. Does anyone know where to search for the problem that characters ‚ to Ÿ are displayed as "#" characters. The other characters (lower ascii and beyond  ) are displaying fine. Is this an encoding problem? I seem to get the same result for all fonts. Wh

RE: Problem with fo:basic-link and fo:block-container

> From: Keen Tim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 11:55 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Problem with fo:basic-link and fo:block-container > > > Thanks for your reply Chris > > FWIW 0.20.5 fixed the problem. I had a private example that was > far more extreme than

RE: fox:destination

me";. > > > Regards, Julian -- bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 > -Original Message- > From: Julian Reschke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 11:28 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE:

RE: 0.20.5 vs hyphenation

> There are only 10 kinds of people in the world: those who > understand binary > and those who don't. > > > > > > "Julian Reschke" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]Para: > <

RE: 0.20.5 vs hyphenation

???] > > = > Marcelo Jaccoud Amaral > Petrobras - TI - Negócios Eletrônicos > mailto:jaccoud [at] petrobras.com.br > ========= > There are only 10 kinds of people in the world: those who > under

RE: fox:destination

> From: Victor Mote [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 8:31 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: fox:destination > > > Julian Reschke wrote: > > > while browsing the source of the maintenance branch I found out that FOP > > alre

fox:destination

Hi, while browsing the source of the maintenance branch I found out that FOP already has support for creating anchors within PDF files (things that can be addressed using URL fragment identifiers). It seems that?it works just fine. Why is this missing from the documentation? Julian -- bytes Gmb

RE: 0.20.5 vs hyphenation

> From: Glen Mazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 3:58 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: 0.20.5 vs hyphenation > > > --- Julian Reschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The current implementation seems to have two > >

0.20.5 vs hyphenation

Hi. I think the non-letter handling in LineArea's hyphenation routine needs to enhanced. I'm producing a two-column index which contains keywords from WebDAV specs, such as "DAV:version-controlled-collection", i.e. the words contain multiple non-letter characters. The current implementation seem