xmlgraphics-fop-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Theresa Jayne Forster" <ther...@inbrand.co.uk>
Subject RE: Problems since upgrading,
Date Fri, 03 Jun 2011 10:10:34 GMT
The problem is that the Designers specify it must be HEAVY not BOLD and they
have no understanding of the numeric weights.

 

The designers use light, normal, bold, heavy and black 

 

The current FOP only supports normal and bold. 

 

I guess I will need to make sure that the fop I use is modded to support the
black and heavy as well as light.

 

 

Kindest regards

 


Theresa Forster

Senior Software Developer



From: Eric Douglas [mailto:edouglas@blockhouse.com] 
Sent: 02 June 2011 16:03
To: fop-users@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Subject: RE: Problems since upgrading,

 

heavy is not a standard keyword.

If you select the wrong value for the fonts you have loaded it should log a
warning for font replacement.

Keywords translate to specific numbers.

You would want to use the numbers instead of the words to be sure it's
always correct.

They might think light is 200 but your light font has a weight of 100, or
normal 300 / 400 etc.

http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/fonts.html#font-boldness

Standard keywords are normal (400) and bold (700), and lighter / bolder
(relative to parent).

 

 

 

  _____  

From: Theresa Jayne Forster [mailto:theresa@inbrand.co.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 10:46 AM
To: fop-users@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Subject: Problems since upgrading,

Since upgrading the fop I use from 0.23 to 1.0 I am now getting problems 

One of which is that the font designations I used to use are now no longer
possible, and was wondering why this has seemingly changed, and is there
plans to support the method I am used to using?

 

Before <fo:block font-family="Frutiger" font-style="normal"
font-weight="heavy"/>

 

Now apparently I need to do weight as a number 700=bold etc

 

Kindest regards

 


Theresa Forster

Senior Software Developer



 

  _____  

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1375 / Virus Database: 1509/3662 - Release Date: 05/26/11


Mime
View raw message