David Elliot wrote:
Hi Glen,
Sure that makes sense, FOP looks to be conceived as an Apache strength
XSL-FO -> PDF formatting utility/library that implements W3C's XSL-FO
standard - the end result being a library which task specific
applications can then confidently leverage. Although, currentl
Hi
I have a little trouble to use a relative URI in the FOP config file.
Here is an excerpt:
I got the following:
pdf.Failed to embed fontfile: ../fonts/arial.ttf(URI could not be
resolved (no protocol: ../fonts/arial.ttf): ../font
On Jan 6, 2006, at 10:15 AM, Glen Mazza wrote:
I think we're talking two different things. FOP's input is still
an XML document in the XSL namespace, those types above are
graphics incorporated via fo:external-graphic or fo:instream-
foreign-object. You would apparently like a new extension
Florent Georges wrote:
I have a little trouble to use a relative URI in the FOP config file.
FOP 0.91 currently can't deal with relative URLs for embedding. Neat
comment in the relevant code:
/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Temporary hack to compile, improve later */
return new ja
Hi all,
> FOP 0.91 currently can't deal with relative URLs for embedding. Neat
> comment in the relevant code:
> /[EMAIL PROTECTED] Temporary hack to compile, improve later */
> return new java.net.URL(uri).openStream();
> Don't expect a quick fix,Getting the necessary inf
"J.Pietschmann" wrote:
> /[EMAIL PROTECTED] Temporary hack to compile, improve later */
> return new java.net.URL(uri).openStream();
> Don't expect a quick fix,Getting the necessary information
> for resolving relative URLs at this point will need some
> work.
Ok, thanks for pointing this out.
On Jan 7, 2006, at 02:35, Paul Vinkenoog wrote:
( A bit OT, but anyways... )
I haven't tried 0.91 yet, but in 0.20.5 the above URLs did work as
relative (although indeed they shouldn't). Worse: if you left out the
//, they didn't work anymore. I have fontBaseDirs for several
languages that loo
