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 Rob Sargent <rs...@xmission.com> on 2011/01/11 14:20:47 UTC
Rendering differences: fop-0.95 vs fop.-1.0
I've proven to myself that I'm generating identical xml, but getting
malformed pdf in version 1.0 where 0.95 was perfectly happy.
I'm getting some clipping along the inner (left) side of right-hand
pages in static region-before but only on some pages. Not all pages,
however. It looks as if I've over-lain a high-precedence region-start
but it's not in my code :)
Has anyone seen anything like this?
Attaching the fo.xml for anyone that's curious.
Thanks,
rjs
Re: Rendering differences: fop-0.95 vs fop.-1.0
Posted by Rob Sargent <rs...@xmission.com>.
On 01/13/2011 11:44 AM, Rob Sargent wrote:
>
> On 01/13/2011 11:42 AM, Rob Sargent wrote:
>
>> On 01/12/2011 05:43 AM, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hi Rob,
>>>
>>> On 11/01/11 13:20, Rob Sargent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I've proven to myself that I'm generating identical xml, but getting malformed
>>>> pdf in version 1.0 where 0.95 was perfectly happy.
>>>>
>>>> I'm getting some clipping along the inner (left) side of right-hand pages in
>>>> static region-before but only on some pages. Not all pages, however. It
>>>> looks as if I've over-lain a high-precedence region-start but it's not in my
>>>> code :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Like on page 3? This is a known bug:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49910
>>>
>>> The workaround is to set the overflow property, on the corresponding
>>> fo:region-before element, to visible. Or unset it completely (that is,
>>> leave it to its default value).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Has anyone seen anything like this?
>>>> Attaching the fo.xml for anyone that's curious.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> rjs
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> By removing the overflow="hidden" directive in the region-before both revs are producing beautiful (imho) output.
>>
>> I can live with the smashed text blocks when there is too much in the region-before. It's all manually reviewed rather frequently.
>>
>>
>>
> Oops. spoke to soon. Have more work to do.
>
>
Once I removed /all/ the overflows, things appear fine.
Re: Rendering differences: fop-0.95 vs fop.-1.0
Posted by Rob Sargent <rs...@xmission.com>.
On 01/13/2011 11:42 AM, Rob Sargent wrote:
>
> On 01/12/2011 05:43 AM, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
>
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> On 11/01/11 13:20, Rob Sargent wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I've proven to myself that I'm generating identical xml, but getting malformed
>>> pdf in version 1.0 where 0.95 was perfectly happy.
>>>
>>> I'm getting some clipping along the inner (left) side of right-hand pages in
>>> static region-before but only on some pages. Not all pages, however. It
>>> looks as if I've over-lain a high-precedence region-start but it's not in my
>>> code :)
>>>
>>>
>> Like on page 3? This is a known bug:
>> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49910
>>
>> The workaround is to set the overflow property, on the corresponding
>> fo:region-before element, to visible. Or unset it completely (that is,
>> leave it to its default value).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Has anyone seen anything like this?
>>> Attaching the fo.xml for anyone that's curious.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> rjs
>>>
>>>
> By removing the overflow="hidden" directive in the region-before both revs are producing beautiful (imho) output.
>
> I can live with the smashed text blocks when there is too much in the region-before. It's all manually reviewed rather frequently.
>
>
Oops. spoke to soon. Have more work to do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: Rendering differences: fop-0.95 vs fop.-1.0
Posted by Rob Sargent <rs...@xmission.com>.
On 01/12/2011 05:43 AM, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> On 11/01/11 13:20, Rob Sargent wrote:
>
>> I've proven to myself that I'm generating identical xml, but getting malformed
>> pdf in version 1.0 where 0.95 was perfectly happy.
>>
>> I'm getting some clipping along the inner (left) side of right-hand pages in
>> static region-before but only on some pages. Not all pages, however. It
>> looks as if I've over-lain a high-precedence region-start but it's not in my
>> code :)
>>
> Like on page 3? This is a known bug:
> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49910
>
> The workaround is to set the overflow property, on the corresponding
> fo:region-before element, to visible. Or unset it completely (that is,
> leave it to its default value).
>
>
>
>> Has anyone seen anything like this?
>> Attaching the fo.xml for anyone that's curious.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> rjs
>>
By removing the overflow="hidden" directive in the region-before both revs are producing beautiful (imho) output.
I can live with the smashed text blocks when there is too much in the region-before. It's all manually reviewed rather frequently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: Rendering differences: fop-0.95 vs fop.-1.0
Posted by Rob Sargent <rs...@xmission.com>.
On 01/12/2011 05:43 AM, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> On 11/01/11 13:20, Rob Sargent wrote:
>
>> I've proven to myself that I'm generating identical xml, but getting malformed
>> pdf in version 1.0 where 0.95 was perfectly happy.
>>
>> I'm getting some clipping along the inner (left) side of right-hand pages in
>> static region-before but only on some pages. Not all pages, however. It
>> looks as if I've over-lain a high-precedence region-start but it's not in my
>> code :)
>>
> Like on page 3? This is a known bug:
> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49910
>
> The workaround is to set the overflow property, on the corresponding
> fo:region-before element, to visible. Or unset it completely (that is,
> leave it to its default value).
>
>
>
>> Has anyone seen anything like this?
>> Attaching the fo.xml for anyone that's curious.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> rjs
>>
> HTH,
> Vincent
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
>
>
Thank you very much. In truth so many other things are in flames here
at the moment I haven't had time to apply any of the advice recieved
thus far. But that particular bush has to be extinguished by Monday.
Please stay tuned.
Appreciatively,
rjs
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: Rendering differences: fop-0.95 vs fop.-1.0
Posted by Vincent Hennebert <vh...@gmail.com>.
Hi Rob,
On 11/01/11 13:20, Rob Sargent wrote:
>
> I've proven to myself that I'm generating identical xml, but getting malformed
> pdf in version 1.0 where 0.95 was perfectly happy.
>
> I'm getting some clipping along the inner (left) side of right-hand pages in
> static region-before but only on some pages. Not all pages, however. It
> looks as if I've over-lain a high-precedence region-start but it's not in my
> code :)
Like on page 3? This is a known bug:
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49910
The workaround is to set the overflow property, on the corresponding
fo:region-before element, to visible. Or unset it completely (that is,
leave it to its default value).
> Has anyone seen anything like this?
> Attaching the fo.xml for anyone that's curious.
>
> Thanks,
> rjs
HTH,
Vincent
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: Rendering differences: fop-0.95 vs fop.-1.0
Posted by Rob Sargent <rs...@xmission.com>.
On 01/11/2011 11:46 AM, Andreas Delmelle wrote:
> On 11 Jan 2011, at 19:31, Rob Sargent wrote:
>
>
>> My apologies for the size of the fo file. If I knew where the problem
>> was in particular I certain would have trimmed it.
>>
> OK, no harm done.
>
>
>> I'll follow-up on your suggestions, for which I am most thankful.
>> I sent the whole thing since there are pdf differences on "most"
>> of the right hand pages, all of which printed nicely under 0.95.
>>
> If you can be more specific, don't hold back. Quite some time and commits passed between 0.95 and 1.0, so I cannot exclude the possibility that there are regressions among those differences. The more accurate you can tell what appears wrong, the better we will be able to judge whether they are genuine bugs or just 'natural' (and in XSL-FO, the latter is at times counter-intuitive...).
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Andreas
> ---
>
>
Once I nail the culprit (table size calculation or what ever) I'll try
to report back the difference.
Stay tuned (patiently :) )
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: Rendering differences: fop-0.95 vs fop.-1.0
Posted by Andreas Delmelle <an...@telenet.be>.
On 11 Jan 2011, at 19:31, Rob Sargent wrote:
> My apologies for the size of the fo file. If I knew where the problem
> was in particular I certain would have trimmed it.
OK, no harm done.
> I'll follow-up on your suggestions, for which I am most thankful.
> I sent the whole thing since there are pdf differences on "most"
> of the right hand pages, all of which printed nicely under 0.95.
If you can be more specific, don't hold back. Quite some time and commits passed between 0.95 and 1.0, so I cannot exclude the possibility that there are regressions among those differences. The more accurate you can tell what appears wrong, the better we will be able to judge whether they are genuine bugs or just 'natural' (and in XSL-FO, the latter is at times counter-intuitive...).
Regards,
Andreas
---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: Rendering differences: fop-0.95 vs fop.-1.0
Posted by Rob Sargent <rs...@xmission.com>.
My apologies for the size of the fo file. If I knew where the problem
was in particular I certain would have trimmed it. I'll follow-up on
your suggestions, for which I am most thankful. I sent the whole thing
since there are pdf differences on "most" of the right hand pages, all
of which printed nicely under 0.95. If I have to adjust the calculation
of the table size (vertically) in fop-1.0 so be it.
Thanks again,
rjs
On 01/11/2011 11:09 AM, Andreas Delmelle wrote:
> On 11 Jan 2011, at 14:20, Rob Sargent wrote:
>
> Hi Rob
>
>
>> I've proven to myself that I'm generating identical xml, but getting malformed pdf in version 1.0 where 0.95 was perfectly happy.
>>
>> I'm getting some clipping along the inner (left) side of right-hand pages in static region-before but only on some pages. Not all pages, however. It looks as if I've over-lain a high-precedence region-start but it's not in my code :)
>>
>> Has anyone seen anything like this?
>> Attaching the fo.xml for anyone that's curious.
>>
> In the future, please pay us curious folk the courtesy of either:
> a) providing the *smallest possible* sample reproducing the issue, or
> b) describing your issue in more detail
>
> Just mentioning, since, IIC, you sent us about 23 pages of content too many... Thanks in advance!
>
> With that many pages and such a vague description, it is hard to see exactly what 'malformed pdf' you are referring to.
>
> Do I get it correct that you mean the effect that is visible on page 2?
> In that case, do mind that the region-before cannot grow beyond the specified extent of 1.5in. If it does, it will overlap the region-body, whether you intended it or not.
>
> I am unsure what exactly 0.95 did differently, but I am quite sure that that combination of block and nested tables will be too big to fit in the space of 1.5in. You can see that if you remove the second row of the innermost table (containing the block with text 'asdf'). After doing that, the page seems to look as it should.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Andreas
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: Rendering differences: fop-0.95 vs fop.-1.0
Posted by Andreas Delmelle <an...@telenet.be>.
On 11 Jan 2011, at 14:20, Rob Sargent wrote:
Hi Rob
>
> I've proven to myself that I'm generating identical xml, but getting malformed pdf in version 1.0 where 0.95 was perfectly happy.
>
> I'm getting some clipping along the inner (left) side of right-hand pages in static region-before but only on some pages. Not all pages, however. It looks as if I've over-lain a high-precedence region-start but it's not in my code :)
>
> Has anyone seen anything like this?
> Attaching the fo.xml for anyone that's curious.
In the future, please pay us curious folk the courtesy of either:
a) providing the *smallest possible* sample reproducing the issue, or
b) describing your issue in more detail
Just mentioning, since, IIC, you sent us about 23 pages of content too many... Thanks in advance!
With that many pages and such a vague description, it is hard to see exactly what 'malformed pdf' you are referring to.
Do I get it correct that you mean the effect that is visible on page 2?
In that case, do mind that the region-before cannot grow beyond the specified extent of 1.5in. If it does, it will overlap the region-body, whether you intended it or not.
I am unsure what exactly 0.95 did differently, but I am quite sure that that combination of block and nested tables will be too big to fit in the space of 1.5in. You can see that if you remove the second row of the innermost table (containing the block with text 'asdf'). After doing that, the page seems to look as it should.
Regards
Andreas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org