OK - I'm nearly there. The RTF almost looks exactly how I want it to. The
only thing now is a table cell which need to be certain height is shrunk to
one line.
I've discovered which RTF markup I could use to achieve the desired result -
but the FOP process is escaping it all...
Is there any
What do you mean by escaping it? If you open a bugzilla issue and
attach your current patch I'm happy to review it for you and to provide
tips.
On 23.07.2008 16:16:24 Paul Hunnisett wrote:
OK - I'm nearly there. The RTF almost looks exactly how I want it to. The
only thing now is a table cell
What I mean by 'escaping' is that if I put the following in my fo:
fo:block ...
{ \line \line \line \line \line \line \line \line \line \line \line \line
\line }
/fo:block
Which is just some RTF markup, is output as:
\{ \\ line \\ line \\ line \\ line \\ line \\ line \\ line \\ line \\ line
\\
Sorry, but that's not how it works. You can't just put RTF markup in
your FO and expect that to properly show up in RTF files. FOP has to
support all sorts of different output formats. And hacking in something
like that is certainly not the way to go. This has to do be done by
improving the RTF
Surely it's just text though? The fact that an RTF reader will interpret is
as having some other meaning shouldn't need to affect the FOP process...
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Jeremias Maerki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Sorry, but that's not how it works. You can't just put RTF markup in
And what if someone wants to create an document in which he puts
snippets of RTF as part of the documentation? How does he escape that?
Yes, it's just text, but it's document text not content (or commands) that
is put into RTF 1:1.
On 23.07.2008 18:09:18 Paul Hunnisett wrote:
Surely it's just
OK - this is almost looking how I want it to after playing around with
tables and I've upgraded to 0.95 as well.
However, I'm still havign one problem with inserting whitespace into the RTF
- specifically, line breaks. I have empty table cells that need to be a
certian height, but they are
Looking at the source code it appears as if only the height on
fo:table-row is inspected. The right property would actually be
block-progression-dimension since height is mapped to
block-progression-dimension, but that's the way it looks right now.
I haven't run any tests, but you might want to
I've written an FO document that I need to convert into and RTF file. It
comes through the transform all messed up looking (sorry - best
description!). If I transform it into a PDF then it looks perfect, but the
RTF looks awful.
I've attached the original fo, the PDF and the RTF output so that
Actually, you forgot to attach the FO file (or it got stripped at some
point). Anyway, I can only point you to:
http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/0.95/output.html#rtf
I've already updated the documentation on the RTF limitations a few days
ago, but those updates aren't live, yet. Just to replicate
I've tried attaching the fo again.
All I want to do is a simple document. It has some text, a simple list and
a simple table. At present I have no option other than RTF - unless I go
back and say that it can't be done...
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Jeremias Maerki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
If you change the list to a table and use absolute values for
column-width in the table you should be fine. The latter problem has
been fixed recently in the 0.95 branch:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xmlgraphics/fop/branches/fop-0_95
HTH
On 09.07.2008 16:31:28 Paul Hunnisett wrote:
I've
Brilliant - thanks, I'll give that a go...
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Jeremias Maerki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
If you change the list to a table and use absolute values for
column-width in the table you should be fine. The latter problem has
been fixed recently in the 0.95 branch:
13 matches
Mail list logo
