Thanks for the pointer! That was what I was looking for. So it seems that the config file MUST reside WITH the FO file, in the same directory. But only IF base is used in the config file? If the base parameter is not used in the config, every relative URI is relative to the FO file's location? Do I understand that correctly? In a message dated 1/19/2016 1:31:20 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
Hi, there is a big change between FOP 1.x and FOP 2.x regarding the base: 1.x: base defaults to FOP uri 2.x: base defaults to FO uri See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOP-2306 2016-01-19 1:21 GMT+01:00 <[email protected]>: > All, > Thanks to Tosten who made me think hard ;-) > > It turns that the FOP config file parameter <base> is the issue. Like > Torsten mentioned, the base parameter appears to be an absolute path now in > FOP 2.1. However, this is not a good option for an existing system that > supports many projects and various paths. My base was set as: > <base>./</base> > > When I set it to an absolute path for testing, FOP 2.1 found all of the > files. However, when I REMOVED it, allowing to go to it's default setting > (current directory), everything ran normally and files were located > correctly. > > So for my situation, removing the <base> parameter works on FOP 2.1, and it > also works on FOP 1.1. I do believe that there is a bug in that section of > the 2.1 code. > > Thanks to everyone that helped out! > > Regards, > Dean Nelson > > In a message dated 1/18/2016 8:16:34 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > > Dean, > > yes, I did this in our docbook xsl configuration layer via changing > admin.graphics.path. You may also want to set img.src.path. > > Hope this helps, > > Torsten > > > On 18.01.2016 17:04, [email protected] wrote: >> Torsten >> Did you do this via XSL? Or could you describe how you did this? >> Thanks >> Dean >> In a message dated 1/18/2016 6:12:37 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, >> [email protected] writes: >> >> Hi Dean, >> >> I made the same experience recently, attempting a similar port from >> Fop >> 1.1 to Fop 2.1 of our DocBook documents. >> >> Apparently, Fop 2.1 seems to be more strict about the format of the >> url >> argument. I managed to resolve this by converting image references to >> absolute file URIs (e.g. file:///<path>/images/). I was not able to >> use >> a relative path and folded. >> >> Luckily, in my case mostly admonition graphics were affected, which I >> could resolve by specifying an absolute admon.graphics.path. >> >> Hope this helps, >> >> Torsten >> >> On 17.01.2016 02:29, [email protected] wrote: >> > Hello! >> > Thanks for everyone's hard work on the FOP 2.1 release! >> > I have a stable Docbook system with FOP 1.1 and when I upgraded >> to 2.1 I >> > noticed an issue: It appears that FOP cannot find the images in >> the new >> > system. >> > [ERROR] FOUserAgent - Image not found. URI: images/redneck9.bmp. >> (See >> > position 15:562) >> > Which points to this line: >> > <fo:external-graphic src="url(images/redneck9.bmp)" width="7cm" >> > height="auto" content-width="scale-to-fit" >> content-height="scale-to-fit" >> > content-type="content-type:image/BMP" text-align="center"/> >> > This is exactly the same file that FOP 1.1 processes just fine and >> I >> > looked to see if there were any changes in the way I needed to >> run FOP >> > but I could not see anything related to that. >> > Was there a change for FOP 2.1 that would cause this? >> > Thanks >> > Dean Nelson >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > -- pascal --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
