[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

request advice: format statements end up in PDF file



Any advice (or reference to a more appropriate forum) on the following
will be appreciated:

I try build a printable file for a book I wrote in DocBook, like this:

xsltproc -o GemBook.fo --stringparam paper.type A4 /usr/share/sgml/docbook/stylesheet/xsl/nwalsh/fo/docbook.xsl GemBook.xml

pdfxmltex GemBook.fo


Building the .fo seems to succeed without problems, but TeX reports many
problems:

* many "Overfull \hbox"'s and some "Underfull"'s (and also the occasional
\vbox):

Overfull \hbox (31.54951pt too wide) in paragraph at lines 217--217
[]|/ptmr8t/facetten|

Underfull \hbox (badness 10000) in paragraph at lines 217--217


* many instances where processing pauses and some interactive input is
requested, like:

! Missing number, treated as zero.
<to be read again>
                   p
l.32 ...umn-width="proportional-column-width(3)"/>
                                                  <fo:table-column
column-nu...

?

! Illegal unit of measure (pt inserted).
<to be read again>
                   p
l.32 ...umn-width="proportional-column-width(3)"/>
                                                  <fo:table-column
column-nu...

?


I walk through the processing by just pressing [Enter], and apparently
that is acceptable to pdfxmltex.  At the end, a complete PDF file is
generated.  However, it has these flaws:

* Every page has on top: "- -4pc - -4pc"

* bulleted list entries start with "* 0.60+1em"

* Tables are a distaster:
- start with a line like:
	proportional-column-width(3) proportional-column-width(2) ...
- content is printed on top of each other or badly fitted.


I suppose the TeX is bad, which I presume is due to a bad .fo file.  What
can I do about that?  Is xsltproc not up to the task?  Are Norman Walsh's
stylesheets (as delivered by Debian) incomplete?

--
#>!$!%(@^%#%*(&(#@#*$^@^$##*#@&(%)@**$!(&!^(#((#&%!)%*@)(&$($$%(@#)&*!^$)^@*^@)

	Tom "thriving on chaos" Peters



Reply to: