You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to fop-users@xmlgraphics.apache.org by "Robert P. J. Day" <rp...@mindspring.com> on 2003/05/06 05:27:07 UTC
getting a duplicate image in a short file
i first tried to solve this with the latest CVS FOP build,
which is *definitely* not ready for prime time.
so, with rc2, i took the following docbook file
-----------------------------------------------------------------
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE book PUBLIC "-//OASIS/DTD DocBook XML V4.2//EN" "http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/xml/4.2/docbookx.dtd">
<book>
<bookinfo>
<title>DocBook bits</title>
<authorgroup>
<author>
<firstname>Robert</firstname>
<surname>Day</surname>
<affiliation>
<orgname>Eno River Technologies</orgname>
<address>
<email>rpjday@mindspring.com</email>
</address>
</affiliation>
</author>
</authorgroup>
<copyright>
<year>2000-3</year>
<holder>Robert P. J. Day</holder>
</copyright>
</bookinfo>
<chapter><title>Second chapter</title>
<section><title>Section 1</title>
<para>
Paragraph.
</para>
</section>
<section><title>Section 2</title>
<para>
This is a picture:
<mediaobject>
<imageobject>
<imagedata fileref="xclock.jpg"/>
</imageobject>
<caption>Your standard xclock.</caption>
</mediaobject>
</para>
</section>
</chapter>
</book>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
and ran it thru xsltproc to produce the corresponding .fo file, with a
really trivial stylesheet. apparently, the mediaobject processes
correctly, and there is just a single image in the .fo file.
however, when i process that .fo file with FOP, i get the image
appearing *twice*. this is definitely not good behavior.
any hints?
rday
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-user-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: fop-user-help@xml.apache.org
Re: getting a duplicate image in a short file
Posted by Jeremias Maerki <de...@greenmail.ch>.
On 06.05.2003 14:08:16 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Tue, 6 May 2003, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
>
> > Yup. CVS tag "fop-0_20_2-maintain" as described here:
> > http://xml.apache.org/fop/dev/index.html
>
> ironically, i just figured that out. so to clarify the
> differences between the branches and possible downloads:
>
> 1) 0.20.5rc2 is the current release candidate. these
> release candidates are fixed and are not updated until
> the next release candidate (upcoming rc3, if i read
> things correctly)
correct.
> 2) the maintenance branch (referred to above) represents
> no more than bug fixes to the current release candidate,
> and should be able to be dropped in place of the current
> RC without breaking anything.
You could see it that way. It's the place in CVS where we keep the code
for the "old FOP". When we do a release a snapshot from there gets
promoted. At least until 0.20.5 is out.
> 3) the "redesign" branch (and i may be getting this wrong)
> represents ongoing work from the current release candidate
> and will eventually become the next RC, yes?
No. The redesign ("new FOP") is another development line than the
maintenance branch. About one and a half years ago the trunk got tagged
(fop-0_20_2-maintain) and maintenance (and some enhancements) was
continued on that branch. The trunk (or HEAD) became the redesign then
where more drastic changes were done. After 0.20.5 the maintenance
branch will be frozen, no further developement will be done. Development
focuses on the trunk. And as soon as we're ready in the trunk the next
release (or release candidate) will be coming from the trunk again.
> it's more
> than just big fixes; obviously it represents new features,
> but there's no guarantee that you can just drop it in
> place of the current release candidate.
Yes, although we will need to reestablish backwards-compatibility so you
should be able to drop it in place of releases from the maintenance
branch.
> (and this is
> the branch represented by the "xml-fop" download
> directory, yes?)
Not sure what you mean.
> and the only way to get the current maintenance version
> is via CVS.
Yes. Or in other words: CVS always has the latest code, either for the
maintenance branch or the trunk. But we don't guarantee that code from
CVS always works. That's what the releases are for.
> how much of that did i get right? :-)
Pretty much, obviously.
Jeremias Maerki
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-user-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: fop-user-help@xml.apache.org
Re: getting a duplicate image in a short file
Posted by "Robert P. J. Day" <rp...@mindspring.com>.
On Tue, 6 May 2003, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> Yup. CVS tag "fop-0_20_2-maintain" as described here:
> http://xml.apache.org/fop/dev/index.html
ironically, i just figured that out. so to clarify the
differences between the branches and possible downloads:
1) 0.20.5rc2 is the current release candidate. these
release candidates are fixed and are not updated until
the next release candidate (upcoming rc3, if i read
things correctly)
2) the maintenance branch (referred to above) represents
no more than bug fixes to the current release candidate,
and should be able to be dropped in place of the current
RC without breaking anything.
3) the "redesign" branch (and i may be getting this wrong)
represents ongoing work from the current release candidate
and will eventually become the next RC, yes? it's more
than just big fixes; obviously it represents new features,
but there's no guarantee that you can just drop it in
place of the current release candidate. (and this is
the branch represented by the "xml-fop" download
directory, yes?)
and the only way to get the current maintenance version
is via CVS.
how much of that did i get right? :-)
rday
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-user-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: fop-user-help@xml.apache.org
Re: getting a duplicate image in a short file
Posted by Jeremias Maerki <de...@greenmail.ch>.
Yup. CVS tag "fop-0_20_2-maintain" as described here:
http://xml.apache.org/fop/dev/index.html
On 06.05.2003 13:33:17 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Mon, 5 May 2003, Victor Mote wrote:
>
> > Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >
> > > i first tried to solve this with the latest CVS FOP build,
> > > which is *definitely* not ready for prime time.
> >
> > As mentioned in my post on the other thread, you probably have built the
> > trunk code, and you are correct, it is not very usable. If you get the right
> > branch, you should be getting the best version of FOP yet produced AFAIK.
> >
> > > however, when i process that .fo file with FOP, i get the image
> > > appearing *twice*. this is definitely not good behavior.
> >
> > This is a known bug in 0.20.5rc2:
> > http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17472
> > and it has been fixed in CVS.
>
> what do you mean by the "right branch" of CVS? upon careful reading,
> i see that there are the two branches: maintenance and redesign.
>
> the one i tried a couple of days ago was a CVS snapshot, and it changed
> my output content in pretty significant ways.
>
> so what's the ideal and most stable CVS version to get? the maintenance
> version?
Jeremias Maerki
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-user-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: fop-user-help@xml.apache.org
RE: getting a duplicate image in a short file
Posted by "Robert P. J. Day" <rp...@mindspring.com>.
On Mon, 5 May 2003, Victor Mote wrote:
> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> > i first tried to solve this with the latest CVS FOP build,
> > which is *definitely* not ready for prime time.
>
> As mentioned in my post on the other thread, you probably have built the
> trunk code, and you are correct, it is not very usable. If you get the right
> branch, you should be getting the best version of FOP yet produced AFAIK.
>
> > however, when i process that .fo file with FOP, i get the image
> > appearing *twice*. this is definitely not good behavior.
>
> This is a known bug in 0.20.5rc2:
> http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17472
> and it has been fixed in CVS.
what do you mean by the "right branch" of CVS? upon careful reading,
i see that there are the two branches: maintenance and redesign.
the one i tried a couple of days ago was a CVS snapshot, and it changed
my output content in pretty significant ways.
so what's the ideal and most stable CVS version to get? the maintenance
version?
rday
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-user-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: fop-user-help@xml.apache.org
RE: getting a duplicate image in a short file
Posted by Victor Mote <vi...@outfitr.com>.
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> i first tried to solve this with the latest CVS FOP build,
> which is *definitely* not ready for prime time.
As mentioned in my post on the other thread, you probably have built the
trunk code, and you are correct, it is not very usable. If you get the right
branch, you should be getting the best version of FOP yet produced AFAIK.
> however, when i process that .fo file with FOP, i get the image
> appearing *twice*. this is definitely not good behavior.
This is a known bug in 0.20.5rc2:
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17472
and it has been fixed in CVS.
Victor Mote
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-user-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: fop-user-help@xml.apache.org