Anton Wardaschko (PA) wrote:
It's a little bit confusing, but i'm find to my surprise, that the problem
with the sect2 apperas only than when i generated the abstract part of
bookinfo. I commented parts out and firstly it looks like the problem come
from a table in an abstract section. When i comme
Hi!
>>>
Sounds like you didn't define the the – ENTITY (and after
defiining it, you can use it as you are currently doing:
>>>
The Entity is defined in the DocBook DTD and works. As i already says, i
don't understand this behavior, but it it works now.
CU
Anton
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME
Sounds like you didn't define the the – ENTITY (and after
defiining it, you can use it as you are currently doing:
Or you could just replace the "–" with it's numeric reference
"–".
I'm sure there are many places on the internet to find the Character
Entity Reference, but here's one I found:
h
Hi!
It is unbelievable and i can't understand it, but the problem seems to be not
hte whole table, but only one row in it:
D – 70191 Stuttgart
If i write instead of it Deutschland 70191 Stuttgart, so the output is correct.
It is a nonsens! I can't understand it, but all the TOC-Numbers are aft
Hi!
>>>
Sorry, it cuts off just before it gets interesting.
>>>
Sorry. ;-)
>>>
You can start with a copy of your real file and successively cut stuff.
>>>
It's a little bit confusing, but i'm find to my surprise, that the problem with
the sect2 apperas only than when i generated the abstract
Anton Wardaschko (PA) wrote:
See the screenshot. Chapters and all the sections numbers are OK, only the
sect2 Numbers do not fit.
The FO-File is hard to read, cause of no indents in the TOC-generated parts,
a part of fo file is attached to this mail too.
Sorry, it cuts off just before it gets inter
Hi!
>>>
> The output of the TOC-Numbers looks now much better, but it is not perfect.
> The Numbers of sect2 fit not exact with the oders. Is this problem known and
> would be corrected in the next version?
Could you supply a slightly more explicit problem description, preferably
augmented by a s
Anton Wardaschko (PA) wrote:
> Unfortunatly you wrote firstly only "mantain" without branch
> number. So i thougt, that the main may be correct.
>
> How can i see, which version of FOP contain the branch? I mean,
> that branch fop-0_20_2-maintain contains fop version 0.20.5rc3,
> so the number of
Anton Wardaschko (PA) wrote:
The output of the TOC-Numbers looks now much better, but it is not perfect.
The Numbers of sect2 fit not exact with the oders. Is this problem known and
would be corrected in the next version?
Could you supply a slightly more explicit problem description, preferably
aug
Hi!
>>>
> [INFO] 1.0dev
I told you to be sure to get the code from the maintenance branch. The
branch tag is fop-0_20_2-maintain.
>>>
Unfortunatly you wrote firstly only "mantain" without branch number. So i
thougt, that the main may be correct.
How can i see, which version of FOP contain the
anton wrote:
And I get following error:
[INFO] 1.0dev
I told you to be sure to get the code from the maintenance branch. The
branch tag is fop-0_20_2-maintain.
J.Pietschmann
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For addition
Hi!
>>>
The usual practice would be to run either fop.bat or fop.sh to get all of
the correct settings. If you need to do something different, review those
scripts to make sure your solution covers all of the necessary steps.
>>>
I try it at home, cause' at work i don't have many right's on the s
anton wrote:
> So, i get the sources and compiled it with the newest SDK under Windows.
> There were no errors but when i wish to render my fo-File, i get the
> following errot:
>
> Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError:
> org/apache/fop/apps/Fop
>
> I checked the generated fil
Hi!
>>>
The problem is already fixed, but the code is not yet released.
You can get it from CVS, see
http://xml.apache.org/fop/download.html
Be sure to get the code from the maintenance branch:
http://xml.apache.org/fop/dev/index.html#lines
>>>
So, i get the sources and compiled it with the n
anton wrote:
see the Screenshot. The alignment of the numbers is not exact. What should
i do to fix it?
See
http://xml.apache.org/fop/faq.html#page-number-align
The problem is already fixed, but the code is not yet released.
You can get it from CVS, see
http://xml.apache.org/fop/download.html
Be
Hi!
see the Screenshot. The alignment of the numbers is not exact. What should
i do to fix it?
I use DocBook with Norm's stelysheet version 1.60.1
Here is a part from the toc.line template.
Hmm, yes. See the download page I mentioned:
http://xml.apache.org/fop/download.html
The tag is: fop-0_20_2-maintain
On 01.04.2003 23:29:15 Afshartous, Nick wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jeremias Maerki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > You're out of luck. The snapshots represen
Title: fix for page number alignment in TOC
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeremias Maerki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> You're out of luck. The snapshots represent the development
> code for the
> upcoming FOP 1.0. You need to download the code from CVS.
You're out of luck. The snapshots represent the development code for the
upcoming FOP 1.0. You need to download the code from CVS. I've just
updated the information on the download page, but it'll take a while
until the changes will be online.
On 01.04.2003 21:36:52 Afshartous, Nick wrote:
>
> >
Title: RE: page number alignment in TOC
> Afshartous, Nick wrote:
> > I know that the issue of right-justifying
> > page numbers in a TOC is a documented
> > limitation
> >
> > http://xml.apache.org/fop/faq.html#page_number_align
> >
> >
Afshartous, Nick wrote:
I know that the issue of right-justifying
page numbers in a TOC is a documented
limitation
http://xml.apache.org/fop/faq.html#page_number_align
but I was wondering if anyone has managed to work
around this. In other words has anyone found
a technique for making the
Title: page number alignment in TOC
I know that the issue of right-justifying
page numbers in a TOC is a documented
limitation
http://xml.apache.org/fop/faq.html#page_number_align
but I was wondering if anyone has managed to work
around this. In other words has anyone found
a
22 matches
Mail list logo
