docbook-apps

Hello,

Apologies if this is really a FOP question. I'm a bit out of my depth.

I've added some FO customization based on Bob Stayton's helpful suggestion
on putting hyphenation within table
cells<http://www.mail-archive.com/docbook@lists.oasis-open.org/msg05030.html>,
adding soft hyphens after . in <literal>.

For most of the text the customization works exactly as desired in PDF. For
example, inside of a <para>,
<literal>com.iplanet.am.sdk.caching.enabled</literal> shows up split where
necessary.

You must explicitly set this property to true, because setting com.-
> iplanet.am.sdk.caching.enabled to false in the previous step disables
> both user and configuration data caching.


I have many examples of this working throughout the documentation I'm
working on, and it is particularly helpful in table cells.

Unfortunately, in some cases, such as <term><literal>userattr =
"[parent[child-level].]attr#GROUPDN|USERDN"</literal></term>, the soft
hyphen shows up after the . even though the line does not break. (I've
replaced the soft hyphen in the following with a hyphen so you can see what
I mean.)

userattr = "[parent[child-level].­-]attr#GROUPDN|USERDN"


What should I do to avoid the soft hyphen appearing in the PDF in such
cases?

Thanks for your time and your help,
Mark

In fact it looks like whether the soft hyphen shows up in mid line depends
on the following character.

<itemizedlist>
> <listitem><para><literal>..</literal></para></listitem>
> <listitem><para><literal>. .</literal></para></listitem>
> <listitem><para><literal>.</literal></para></listitem>
> <listitem><para><literal>.]</literal></para></listitem>
> <listitem><para><literal>.\</literal></para></listitem>
> <listitem><para><literal>."</literal></para></listitem>
> <listitem><para><literal>.a</literal></para></listitem>
> <listitem><para><literal>.Z</literal></para></listitem>
> </itemizedlist>


produces the following in the PDF:

• .-­.
> • . .
> • .
> • .­-]
> • .\
> • .-­"
> • .a
> • .Z


Mark


On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Mark Craig

Was this example tested with another FO processor besides FOP? That would settle whether it is a FOP problem.

Bob Stayton
Sagehill Enterprises
bobs@sagehill.net


From: Mark Craig
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 6:48 AM
To: docbook-apps@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [docbook-apps] Re: Eliminating soft hyphens shown in mid line?


In fact it looks like whether the soft hyphen shows up in mid line depends on the following character.


<itemizedlist>
<listitem><para><literal>..</literal></para></listitem>
<listitem><para><literal>. .</literal></para></listitem>
<listitem><para><literal>.</literal></para></listitem>
<listitem><para><literal>.]</literal></para></listitem>
<listitem><para><literal>.\</literal></para></listitem>
<listitem><para><literal>."</literal></para></listitem>
<listitem><para><literal>.a</literal></para></listitem>
<listitem><para><literal>.Z</literal></para></listitem>
</itemizedlist>


produces the following in the PDF:


• .-­.
• . .
• .
• .­-]
• .\
• .-­"
• .a
• .Z


Mark



On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Mark Craig

Thanks. Can I do that by just taking the .fo generated during the build and processing it with another FO processor?

(Not sure how to swap out the FO processor in docbkx-tools.)

Mark

On Apr 18, 2013, at 6:20 PM, Bob Stayton wrote:

> Was this example tested with another FO processor besides FOP? That would settle whether it is a FOP problem.
>
> Bob Stayton
> Sagehill Enterprises
> bobs@sagehill.net
>
> From: Mark Craig
> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 6:48 AM
> To: docbook-apps@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [docbook-apps] Re: Eliminating soft hyphens shown in mid line?
>
> In fact it looks like whether the soft hyphen shows up in mid line depends on the following character.
>
> <itemizedlist>
> <listitem><para><literal>..</literal></para></listitem>
> <listitem><para><literal>. .</literal></para></listitem>
> <listitem><para><literal>.</literal></para></listitem>
> <listitem><para><literal>.]</literal></para></listitem>
> <listitem><para><literal>.\</literal></para></listitem>
> <listitem><para><literal>."</literal></para></listitem>
> <listitem><para><literal>.a</literal></para></listitem>
> <listitem><para><literal>.Z</literal></para></listitem>
> </itemizedlist>
>
> produces the following in the PDF:
>
> • .-­.
> • . .
> • .
> • .­-]
> • .\
> • .-­"
> • .a
> • .Z
>
> Mark
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Mark Craig

Sometimes that works. 8^)
The FO extensions generated for each processor may trip up the process. I've found that FOP is the most picky about failing on unrecognized code, so going from FOP to something else usually works.

Bob Stayton
Sagehill Enterprises
bobs@sagehill.net


From: Mark Craig
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 9:25 AM
To: Bob Stayton
Cc: docbook-apps@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [docbook-apps] Re: Eliminating soft hyphens shown in mid line?


Thanks. Can I do that by just taking the .fo generated during the build and processing it with another FO processor?


(Not sure how to swap out the FO processor in docbkx-tools.)


Mark


On Apr 18, 2013, at 6:20 PM, Bob Stayton wrote:


Was this example tested with another FO processor besides FOP? That would settle whether it is a FOP problem.

Bob Stayton
Sagehill Enterprises
bobs@sagehill.net


From: Mark Craig
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 6:48 AM
To: docbook-apps@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [docbook-apps] Re: Eliminating soft hyphens shown in mid line?


In fact it looks like whether the soft hyphen shows up in mid line depends on the following character.


<itemizedlist>
<listitem><para><literal>..</literal></para></listitem>
<listitem><para><literal>. .</literal></para></listitem>
<listitem><para><literal>.</literal></para></listitem>
<listitem><para><literal>.]</literal></para></listitem>
<listitem><para><literal>.\</literal></para></listitem>
<listitem><para><literal>."</literal></para></listitem>
<listitem><para><literal>.a</literal></para></listitem>
<listitem><para><literal>.Z</literal></para></listitem>
</itemizedlist>


produces the following in the PDF:


• .-­.
• . .
• .
• .­-]
• .\
• .-­"
• .a
• .Z


Mark



On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Mark Craig

With docbkx-tools if I set the FO processor extensions correctly and
comment out the custom fonts, I can process the FO separately (at least it
worked for this test).

- FOP 1.1 output is broken in the same fashion as FOP 1.0 output.
- Antenna House's AHFormatterV6 trial version output looks good.
- XEP trial version output looks good.

I haven't tried any other formatters besides Antenna House's and XEP, but
suspect this is a FOP issue.

Mark


On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Bob Stayton <bobs@sagehill.net> wrote:

> **
> Sometimes that works. 8^)
> The FO extensions generated for each processor may trip up the process.
> I've found that FOP is the most picky about failing on unrecognized code,
> so going from FOP to something else usually works.
>
> Bob Stayton
> Sagehill Enterprises
> bobs@sagehill.net
>
> *From:* Mark Craig

I have put together a small .fo and seen the issue with the FOP nightly
build, so have mailed their user list.

Thanks again.
Mark


On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Mark Craig