I'm sure I'll have more questions later, but I figured I'd throw this one out here -- Is anyone else able to build PDFs using Publican? I've been playing with it all weekend, but I keep getting errors from FOP when I try to build PDFs.
(This is after I tweaked /usr/share/publican/xsl/main-pdf.xsl to pull the import the stylesheets on the local system provided by the docbook-style-xsl package, instead of having it pull them from the internet every time. I'm on a very slow internet connection, and it was timing out while trying to download these files.)
The error I"m getting is:
SEVERE: javax.xml.transform.TransformerException: file:/tmp/test-article/tmp/en-US/xml/test-article.fo:1:28716: Error(1/28716): No element mapping definition found for (Namespace URI: "http://xml.apache.org/fop/extensions", Local Name: "destination") Feb 18, 2008 9:25:10 AM org.apache.fop.cli.Main startFOP SEVERE: Exception javax.xml.transform.TransformerException: org.apache.fop.apps.FOPException: file:/tmp/test-article/tmp/en-US/xml/test-article.fo:1:28716: Error(1/28716): No element mapping definition found for (Namespace URI: "http://xml.apache.org/fop/extensions", Local Name: "destination") at org.apache.fop.cli.InputHandler.transformTo(InputHandler.java:168) at org.apache.fop.cli.InputHandler.renderTo(InputHandler.java:115) at org.apache.fop.cli.Main.startFOP(Main.java:166) at org.apache.fop.cli.Main.main(Main.java:196)
FWIW, I'm not running the very latest rawhide, but I've updated fop, xalan, xerces, xml-commons-*, xmlgraphics-*, and the whole IcedTea stack to the latest versions. I'm no Java or FOP guru by any stretch of the imagination, so I'm open to any or all suggestions at this point.
-Jared
On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 09:47 -0500, Jared Smith wrote:
I'm sure I'll have more questions later, but I figured I'd throw this one out here -- Is anyone else able to build PDFs using Publican? I've been playing with it all weekend, but I keep getting errors from FOP when I try to build PDFs.
OK, sorry for the noise on the list... I think I've made some pretty good progress on tracking down this problem. To make a long short, publican is assuming that we're using FOP 0.20, while what's in rawhide is 0.94. This meant xsltproc was adding fox:destination elements to the .fo file, instead of the new fo:bookmarks instead. To work around this problem, I had to pass two additional string parameters to xsltproc (in Makefile.templates):
--stringparam fop1.extensions 1 --stringparam fop.extensions 0
That got the .fo file generated so that FOP 0.94 would handle it correctly, but then FOP died complaining that it couldn't find Batik in the classpath. (Which is strange, because I have batik installed. I'm wondering if the version of FOP in rawhide needs to be rebuilt with something to tell it to look for batik, but that's just a wild guess.) FOP needs batik to render the SVG graphics. To get around this problem, I removed the SVG logo from my document, and I passed one more parameter to xsltproc to tell it to use the .png admonition graphics instead of the SVG versions:
--stringparam admon.graphics.extension .png
Ah, lo and behold, I was able to render a PDF!
I'll go ahead and create a diff against Makefile.templates and post it to bugzilla tomorrow, but this raises a few questions:
1) Do we want the toolchain to be able to detect the version of FOP and adjust itself accordingly?
2) Do we want to expose other parameters to xsltproc? In my very rudimentary home-grown toolchain, I create a custom XSLT stylesheet that exposes a bunch of settings (paper.type, double.sided, draft.mode, shade.verbatim, etc.) which imports the standard XSL stylesheet. Would this be more manageable in the long run that passing a bunch of stringparam arguments to xsltproc?
3) Makefile.templates currently tells FOP to use the fop configuration file in $(COMMON_CONFIG)/fop/fop-0.20.5.xconf, but that doesn't come as part of the publican package. Should we remove the reference (and assume people have a valid FOP config file in /etc/fop.conf), or expose this via a variable in the Makefile? (This isn't a big deal -- I just thought I'd mention it in passing while I was thinking about it.)
4) Can somebody take a look at why fop isn't seeing batik in the classpath? My Java skills are obviously too weak to fix this problem.
-Jared
Hi Jared, we do indeed use FOP 0.20.5, and although I have some configuration data I used when testing FOP 0.93, it is by no means complete and I have no idea if they work with FOP 0.94.
FWIW I have found FOP 0.20.5 to be significantly more reliable than FOP 0.93, I haven't had time to test FOP 0.94 yet :(
Jared Smith wrote:
On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 09:47 -0500, Jared Smith wrote:
I'm sure I'll have more questions later, but I figured I'd throw this one out here -- Is anyone else able to build PDFs using Publican? I've been playing with it all weekend, but I keep getting errors from FOP when I try to build PDFs.
OK, sorry for the noise on the list... I think I've made some pretty good progress on tracking down this problem. To make a long short, publican is assuming that we're using FOP 0.20, while what's in rawhide is 0.94. This meant xsltproc was adding fox:destination elements to the .fo file, instead of the new fo:bookmarks instead. To work around this problem, I had to pass two additional string parameters to xsltproc (in Makefile.templates):
--stringparam fop1.extensions 1 --stringparam fop.extensions 0
That got the .fo file generated so that FOP 0.94 would handle it correctly, but then FOP died complaining that it couldn't find Batik in the classpath. (Which is strange, because I have batik installed. I'm wondering if the version of FOP in rawhide needs to be rebuilt with something to tell it to look for batik, but that's just a wild guess.) FOP needs batik to render the SVG graphics. To get around this problem, I removed the SVG logo from my document, and I passed one more parameter to xsltproc to tell it to use the .png admonition graphics instead of the SVG versions:
--stringparam admon.graphics.extension .png
Ah, lo and behold, I was able to render a PDF!
I'll go ahead and create a diff against Makefile.templates and post it to bugzilla tomorrow, but this raises a few questions:
- Do we want the toolchain to be able to detect the version of FOP and
adjust itself accordingly?
This is probably the best approach, however different versions of FOP require different configuration files and font metrics files. So we really want to keep the number of supported version to a low number, like say 2 :)
- Do we want to expose other parameters to xsltproc? In my very
rudimentary home-grown toolchain, I create a custom XSLT stylesheet that exposes a bunch of settings (paper.type, double.sided, draft.mode, shade.verbatim, etc.) which imports the standard XSL stylesheet. Would this be more manageable in the long run that passing a bunch of stringparam arguments to xsltproc?
The custom xsl has been specifically modified to give the best layout for the targeted formatting. It _may_ break horribly if you change parameters like single page and paper size. By "break horribly" I mean it may output ugly things, which I'm assured is close to criminal ... Andy likes his pretty things!
The thing about brands is that you don't want people changing things arbitrarily, if they want that they need to make their own brand.
The first custom brand will probably be a little difficult, I'll be happy to help anyone trying to setup a custom brand to get any kinks worked out.
I think the best way of doing this is to check for Brand specific xsl files, and if they exist use them. This way you can guarantee that books built using your brand, on your build server, will always be "on brand". But it also allows people to make custom brands and change the layout however they want.
If you wanted to offer two different outputs for a single real format, i.e. two flavors of pdf, one way would be to make a new main-<format>.xsl file.
e.g. Say you were wrong, yes wrong, and wanted to use US Letter (he he he :P) and single page, you could make a new target, say pdf-LS, you just cp main-pdf.xsl to main-pdf-LS.xsl, and make your changes to main-pdf-LS.xsl.
The slightly tricky part is to add the extra build targets to the appropriate Makefile, and viola you have an easy way of building US Letter, Single Page, PDFs (make pdf-LS). This is tricky since it uses Makefile templates, but the actually changes are easy once you grok how they work.
This would allow you to heavily customize the pdf-LS output without impacting the standards compliant, highly correct, extremely sexy, A4 pdf output ;)
I'll be adding Brand specific Makefiles to allow Brands to customize the build process, so this kind of thing will be easier for Brands to do.
- Makefile.templates currently tells FOP to use the fop configuration
file in $(COMMON_CONFIG)/fop/fop-0.20.5.xconf, but that doesn't come as part of the publican package. Should we remove the reference (and assume people have a valid FOP config file in /etc/fop.conf), or expose this via a variable in the Makefile? (This isn't a big deal -- I just thought I'd mention it in passing while I was thinking about it.)
It's at /usr/share/publican/fop/fop-0.20.5.xconf
There is also /usr/share/publican/fop/fop-0.93.xconf
The default fop config file lacks font entries, causing most translated PDFs to be unreadable.
Definitely need to be able to switch fop config files, I'll poke around to find a workable way of doing this.
Cheers, Jeff.
On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 09:23 +1000, Jeff Fearn wrote:
Jared Smith wrote:
- Do we want the toolchain to be able to detect the version of FOP and
adjust itself accordingly?
This is probably the best approach, however different versions of FOP require different configuration files and font metrics files. So we really want to keep the number of supported version to a low number, like say 2 :)
How about three+? This is because we have Fedora N, Fedora N-1, rawhide, and EPEL 5. I'm reckoning that you might want to see the a preferred version of fop in EPEL. We'll continue to need it working in the current, current-minus-one, and rawhide.
- Karsten
Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 09:23 +1000, Jeff Fearn wrote:
Jared Smith wrote:
- Do we want the toolchain to be able to detect the version of FOP and
adjust itself accordingly?
This is probably the best approach, however different versions of FOP require different configuration files and font metrics files. So we really want to keep the number of supported version to a low number, like say 2 :)
How about three+? This is because we have Fedora N, Fedora N-1, rawhide, and EPEL 5. I'm reckoning that you might want to see the a preferred version of fop in EPEL. We'll continue to need it working in the current, current-minus-one, and rawhide.
I came up with a way that can support an arbitrary number of config files :)
I have some patches in place to try and get FOP 0.94 working, however it's proving to be a pain to get working. Still plugging away on that.
Cheers, Jeff.
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 10:19 +1000, Jeff Fearn wrote:
I came up with a way that can support an arbitrary number of config files :)
I have some patches in place to try and get FOP 0.94 working, however it's proving to be a pain to get working. Still plugging away on that.
OK, let me know if I can be of any help, as I currently have FOP 0.94 working just fine with Publican in Rawhide, with the exception of support for SVG graphics. I still haven't got that sorted out yet.
-Jared
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 09:05 -0500, Jared Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 10:19 +1000, Jeff Fearn wrote:
I came up with a way that can support an arbitrary number of config files :)
I have some patches in place to try and get FOP 0.94 working, however it's proving to be a pain to get working. Still plugging away on that.
OK, let me know if I can be of any help, as I currently have FOP 0.94 working just fine with Publican in Rawhide, with the exception of support for SVG graphics. I still haven't got that sorted out yet.
IIRC, Batik originally had some dependencies for graphics processing that couldn't be cleanly included under IcedTea. It may not yet be able to process SVG?
I think Mark (Cc:'d) might be able to shed some light on this.
- Karsten
Hi Karsten,
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 18:32 -0800, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 09:05 -0500, Jared Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 10:19 +1000, Jeff Fearn wrote:
I came up with a way that can support an arbitrary number of config files :)
I have some patches in place to try and get FOP 0.94 working, however it's proving to be a pain to get working. Still plugging away on that.
OK, let me know if I can be of any help, as I currently have FOP 0.94 working just fine with Publican in Rawhide, with the exception of support for SVG graphics. I still haven't got that sorted out yet.
IIRC, Batik originally had some dependencies for graphics processing that couldn't be cleanly included under IcedTea. It may not yet be able to process SVG?
I think Mark (Cc:'d) might be able to shed some light on this.
Everything needed for FOP graphics should work now, but I don't have any experience with it myself. I have CCed Tom Fitzsimmons who does know the details. And was just yesterday raving about an openoffice SVG plugin written in java that people should package for Fedora that worked with IcedTea now.
Cheers,
Mark
docs@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org
-
Jared Smith -
Jeff Fearn -
Karsten Wade -
Mark Wielaard