Now I resolved with some tricks: remove DIV tags if they contain TABLEs or
IMAGEs. I'll attend the next version to update my code.
Thanks so much for the effort.
Roberto
2013/9/17 iText Info [via iText - General] <
ml-node+s2136553n4659163...@n4.nabble.com>
> Op 13/09/2013 1
A very simple patch to this problem is to rename the DIV tag into another
fake name. In that manner xmlWorker ignore the tag and therefore it does not
truncate the table.
It works for me.
--
View this message in context:
http://itext-general.2136553.n4.nabble.com/xmlWorker-TABLE-inside-DI
Using the 5.4.3 version of xmlWorker, I noted that TABLES inside DIV (for an
XHTML file) are truncated at the end of the page in the final PDF.
Any idea? Is it a bug or my mistake?
thx
--
View this message in context:
http://itext-general.2136553.n4.nabble.com/xmlWorker-TABLE-inside-DIV-are-
I noted that the problem is related to a TABLE TAG inside a DIV. Only in this
case the Table is truncated, otherwise it works fine.
Very strange!
--
View this message in context:
http://itext-general.2136553.n4.nabble.com/xmlWorker-problem-with-image-size-in-table-cells-tp4659077p4659136.html
I investigated a little bit more your testcase and I discovered that in my
code I was using xmlWorker 5.4.3 with iText 5.4.1. Run your test with ONLY
the Table works fine with my images too and no issues are there.
Running your testcase with the full text has two different behavior
depending on:
Thanks so much for the test case. I'm running a more complex testcase where
the problem happens. ASAP I'll attach the test.
--
View this message in context:
http://itext-general.2136553.n4.nabble.com/xmlWorker-problem-with-image-size-in-table-cells-tp4659077p4659104.html
Sent from the iText
iText Info wrote
> On 9/4/2013 2:32 PM, roboboot wrote:
>> if you release it as open
>> source you should give some sort of support to the open source community.
>
> Let me rephrase this assumption (because it's wrong):
>
> if you release it as open
> source th
When I say "support is terrible" I mean "open source community support", not
"paying support". I like very much iText and if you release it as open
source you should give some sort of support to the open source community.
And you do this!
It is in your interest, as owners of this project, to gain
Sorry guys...
Does anyone have some idea about it?
xmlWorker is very interesting but support is terrible. None use it?
thanks
--
View this message in context:
http://itext-general.2136553.n4.nabble.com/xmlWorker-problem-with-image-size-in-table-cells-tp4659077p4659087.html
Sent from the iTe
I have a very simple HTML table where every row can contain images. In my
case, it contains only one image for cell. The problem is that the dimension
of the image is not always resized well to fit the containing cell.
In particular in the last row the image is sized down instead to render it
to
(Embedded image moved to
>file: pic06334.gif)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
&g
Sorry guys,
Is there anyone with is problem?
Thanks again
roboboot wrote
> Hi all,
>
> I use a very simple CSS in XMLWorker to render HTML to PDFs. Here is the
> CSS:
>
> ***
> body { font-family: "Times New Roman;" }
>
> p.testoJu
Hi all,
I use a very simple CSS in XMLWorker to render HTML to PDFs. Here is the
CSS:
***
body { font-family: "Times New Roman;" }
p.testoJustify {
text-align:justify;
text-justify:inter-word;
}
***
The problem is on the ".testoJustify" selector. When I use this selector,
the
Yes, the problem was the validation.
Could be fine if XMLWorker used a lazy parser with more verbose error
messages about that kind of errors...
But sure, with a Tidy pass the mess is resolved.
Best regards
r
--
View this message in context:
http://itext-general.2136553.n4.nabble.com/XMLWo
I use XMLWorker 5.4.1. and I need to convert HTML to PDF.
I have just tried the sample code on the web site of the project to convert
an XHTML file with Table inside but I get this error:
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException: -1
at java.util.ArrayList.get(Un
Thanks to you. I'll stay tuned to hear from you good news :)
DenLindy wrote
> Roberto
>
> I am very excited to find another CoSign user. Thank you for responding. I
> hope we can help each other.
> I am using itext 5.3.3. I will study your code and see if I can get it to
> work with itext 5.3.3
iText 4.22 is not an official version but the last nightly-built on iText
4.2.1 sources. I recompiled that version to patch a problem on signing big
PDF files. For your needs it's the same to take the 4.2.1 JARS.
--
View this message in context:
http://itext-general.2136553.n4.nabble.com/Signin
I use this code in iext 4.22 (but I guess you are using 5.3.x). Because I
have to make the porting of this code to the 5.3.x and I have the same
CoSign appliance, I think my code could be useful to you and me.
Some details: I invoke a WS exposed by the CoSign Appliance and I sent only
the digest o
Thanks a lot, but what I meant is that if there is some differences on how to
sign a PDF or a PDF/A with iText 5.3.0.
I suppose no, but it's better to stress the concept to avoid ambiguity.
1T3XT BVBA wrote
> Op 20/09/2012 19:11, roboboot schreef:
>> My code use iText 5.2.2, but I
1T3XT BVBA wrote
> Op 20/09/2012 18:14, roboboot schreef:
>> I'm going to migrate my signing code to iText 5.3.x. Is there any thing
>> that
>> I have to implement for the signature of PDF/A? I think not...but I
>> prefer
>> to ask you.
> From what ve
I'm going to migrate my signing code to iText 5.3.x. Is there any thing that
I have to implement for the signature of PDF/A? I think not...but I prefer
to ask you.
Thanks a lot
Roberto
--
View this message in context:
http://itext-general.2136553.n4.nabble.com/iText-5-3-x-and-PDF-A-signatures
iText Info wrote
>
> Op 21/08/2012 16:50, roboboot schreef:
>> After having read on this ml that PDF signature with iText 5.3.x causes
>> that
>> the older PDF viewers couldn't correctly show the signature
>
> Where did you read that?
>
> The new iText
Alexis Pigeon wrote
>
> Hi Roberto,
>
> I guess it's just a mistake, since other versions like 5.3.0, 5.1.3,
> 5.1.2,
> ... are available. Or maybe the 5.2.x branch contains a bug that the
> authors would rather not see spread.
>
>
Yes, sure. The 5.2.1 had a big problem with huge singed PDF f
José Santiago Bonilla Pazmiño wrote
>
> Hi Roberto,
>
> I have been working with iText 5.3.x and everything is OK with older
> versions of viewers. The only "issue" is when you are signing with PAdES,
> it is not even ISO standarized, so expect just new versions of viewers
> (e.g. Adobe Reader X
Hi guys,
After having read on this ml that PDF signature with iText 5.3.x causes that
the older PDF viewers couldn't correctly show the signature, I was
evaluating to use the 5.2.1. But with my big surprise on SourceForge there
is only the latest version and not the older ones.
Why this decisio
This is a good point. Now it is more clear to me. I'll wait for the paper on
5.3.0.
thanks a lot
1T3XT BVBA wrote
>
> 1. aren't mentioned in the PAdES standard, or
> 2. will be deprecated in PDF 2.0.
> You'll read all about it the upcoming paper.
> In short: by choosing to stay with iText 5.2.1
No, I am not a customer, and my question was for the "open source" version.
Ok If I understand well you do not plan a 5.2.2 version for not customers.
Note that 5.2.1 contains a big bug for PDF signatures (but you know
well...), patched in the SVN trunk. As an open source community member I
woul
Do you release a 5.2.2 version of iText?
I do not think to switch to the 5.3.0 so fast and I need the patch for the
signature (now I used a compiled version from SVN, but I would prefer an
official version)
thanks a lot
--
View this message in context:
http://itext-general.2136553.n4.nabble.co
I have just tried the patch with my dataset and I confirm you that it works!
thanks a lot
Paulo Soares-4 wrote
>
> You need BC 1.47.
>
> Paulo
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://itext-general.2136553.n4.nabble.com/iText-error-in-signing-big-PDF-files-SigDict-Contents-illegal-da
146.jar in the classpath. Probably it is a my
mistake. Note that the 5.2.1 works without problem of BC (but with the sign
bug).
Regards
Roberto
mkl wrote
>
> Roberto,
>
> roboboot wrote
>> Please can you advise me a link to a build version of this patched
>> version
Please can you advise me a link to a build version of this patched version?
I can test the new version on a large dataset of PDF.
Roberto
mkl wrote
>
> Paulo,
>
>
> Paulo Soares-4 wrote
>> The fix is done in the SVN trunk. Please check that it works.
>
> after taking some detours (at first
If I understand well, I have to wait a patch to the code (I assume the
fastest way is to use directly append(double)). Or I have to recompile to
myself the iText code ;)
Let me know
Thanks a lot
Roberto
mkl wrote
>
> Roberto, Andreas,
>
> this indeed is a bug in iText.
>
> Everything in the
If you want to do the same test, here is the unsigned file:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/09qoh1z4gl8zde1/200MB.pdf
And Yes, as in the previous post, I confirm the size of the signed file.
thx
Andreas Kuehne-3 wrote
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> as usual you right: There is a strange difference in the calc
Yes the exact size of the signed file is: 212.643.376 byte
Instead the size of the unsigned file is: 212.622.670 byte
thx
mkl wrote
>
> Roberto,
>
> Roberto Battistoni wrote
>> Here is an example of file that once signed has the problem:
>
> What is the exact size of that file? When I downlo
34 matches
Mail list logo
