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

Re: Bug#91892: Small problem with Layout of pdf documentation



On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 06:58:36PM -0700, Chris Tillman wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 04:26:22PM -0700, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > Ardo,
> > 
> > I do not see the exact problem on current installmanual in section 5.4
> > but see similar problem in appendix.  (I remember seeing it a lot with
> > the old woody TEX before freeze.)
> 
> I worked around it by changing the name to '.../current/etc.' instead
> of displaying the entire url in the name. You can see it in
> documentation/defaults.ent.

I see you are trying but PDF file have text going over right side.  I
tested a short sgml file with similar contents and confirmed this
happens only if these URL are in TAGLIST's TAG field.  Ordinary LIST is
used and these are under ITEM tag, current TEX properly handles it.

> > Can you confirm exact location of problem?  There may be a way to fix
> > this without hacking with debiandoc-sgml which seem to work fine for me.
> > My "Debian Reference" has quite a bit of long URL.
> > 
> 
> Ardo got the bug handed to him in 2001, in the meantime we worked
> around it. I'm not aware of any places it overflows now, but then
> again I haven't checked in awhile.

I downloaded yeasterday.  So I am sure there is overflow. 

http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/ch-appendix.en.html#s-obtain

Problem has not been solved in PDF.  HTML&TEXT is OK. 

My test sgml is located at:
<url id="http://qref.sf.net/Debian/reference/examples/example.sgml"; 
   name="short example debiandoc-sgml">

Try it and see what happens in PDF, HTML, and TEXT.

I thought non-TAG list was OK.

-- 
~\^o^/~~~ ~\^.^/~~~ ~\^*^/~~~ ~\^_^/~~~ ~\^+^/~~~ ~\^:^/~~~ ~\^v^/~~~ +++++
 Osamu Aoki @ Cupertino CA USA
 See "User's Guide":     http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/users-guide/
 See "Debian reference": http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/
 "Debian reference" Project at: http://qref.sf.net

 I welcome your constructive criticisms and corrections.



Reply to: