Re: [docbook] Problem with fop and fop.extension

[Glen Mazza <gm...@apache.org>]

Excellent!  *That's* why we don't need fox:destination.  We should be 
using the property id values instead.

FOP Users, FOP Dev -- FYI.

Thanks,
Glen


Bob Stayton wrote:

> The latest stylesheet snapshot supports fop 0.91 to some degree, including
> bookmarks.  Set the fop1.extensions parameter to "1" and fop.extensions to
> "0" when using it.  Feedback on this early implementation is welcome.
> 
> http://docbook.sourceforge.net/snapshots/
> 
> Regarding fox:destination, most FO processors use id attributes in the FO
> as PDF anchors.  For example, by default XEP adds an anchor for any id that
> is referenced in the document, but has an option to output all id values
> (useful when linking from other documents).
> 
> Bob Stayton
> Sagehill Enterprises
> DocBook Consulting
> bobs@sagehill.net
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Glen Mazza" <gm...@apache.org>
> To: <do...@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 7:55 AM
> Subject: [docbook-apps] Re: [docbook] Problem with fop and fop.extension
> 
> 
> 
>>Oops...need to send to the list.
>>
>>Glen
>>
>>
>>Glen Mazza wrote:
>>
>>>Petr Hracek wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>during the fop operations I have received following exception
>>>>Exception
>>>>javax.xml.transform.TransformerException:
>>>>org.apache.fop.apps.FOPException:
>>>>
> 
> file:///home/cz2b10q6/Documents/DocBooks/DenikZaslOtce/DenikZaslOtce.fo:2:24488:
> 
>>>>Error(2/24488): No element mapping definition found for fox:outline
>>>>
>>>>Can you tell me which element I have to mapped?
>>>>
>>>>regards
>>>>Petr
>>>>
>>>
>>>Best to stay with FOP 0.20.5.  If you are using fop 0.91, fox:outline
>>>does not exist, as the new version uses the new XSL 1.1 bookmarks
>>>instead.  I don't believe there is a port yet in Docbook to the new
>>>version of FOP, also, the fox:destination is still unimplemented in
> 
> 0.91.
> 
>>>fox:outline had a very messy content model (basically, you could place
>>>it anywhere), making rigorous XSL input validation very difficult.  FOP
>>>0.91, OTOH, enforces the content model for the XSL 1.1 bookmarks per
> 
> the
> 
>>>XSL candidate recommendation, allowing for input validation to be much
>>>more solid.
>>>
>>>[Incidentally, if someone could tell me why there is no equivalent to
>>>fox:destination (PDF anchors) in XSL 1.1, I would *love* to know.  The
>>>XSL Working Group implemented bookmarks in 1.1--obviating fox:bookmark,
>>>fox:outline--but not fox:destination, causing me to think there is
>>>actually no need for it, and that the commercial FO processors are
> 
> doing
> 
>>>something else to create PDF anchors.]
>>>
>>>Glen
>>>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org

Re: [docbook] Problem with fop and fop.extension

[Andreas L Delmelle <a_...@pandora.be>]

On Feb 28, 2006, at 19:35, Glen Mazza wrote:

> Excellent!  *That's* why we don't need fox:destination.  We should  
> be using the property id values instead.

Indeed! That's what that note was about on our extensions page for  
0.20.5.

See also: bugzilla 37157
I think it's beginning to make more sense now. We don't *need* it,  
but it could be transformed to serve renderer-specific purposes: it  
could be _attached to_ a destination marked by an id, and for  
instance, set the default zoom to use when jumping to that  
destination (?)


Cheers,

Andreas

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org