Bug 53846 - Right align doesn't work as expected with page-number-citation
Summary: Right align doesn't work as expected with page-number-citation
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Fop - Now in Jira
Classification: Unclassified
Component: general (show other bugs)
Version: trunk
Hardware: PC All
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: fop-dev
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2012-09-10 10:30 UTC by Giuseppe Briotti
Modified: 2012-09-11 12:08 UTC (History)
0 users



Attachments
A zip containing 4 folder, with 3 files each, as per bug description (35.43 KB, application/zip)
2012-09-10 10:30 UTC, Giuseppe Briotti
Details
A zip file with 4 resulting PDF from FOP 1.0 (16.36 KB, application/zip)
2012-09-11 12:08 UTC, Giuseppe Briotti
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Giuseppe Briotti 2012-09-10 10:30:58 UTC
Created attachment 29350 [details]
A zip containing 4 folder, with 3 files each, as per bug description

Following the Pascal's suggestion, I report this is that seems to be a bug. The discussion started in FOP users mailing list. 

Right align is not correctly honored if the block is not large enough and/or if it contains fo:page-number-citation.

This problem seems to be related to fo:page-number-citation, block size, text alignement and keep-together.within-line="always".

The behaviour is diffent comparing 0.95 and 1.1rc1. 

In the attached zip 4 cases are presented (fo, pdf from 0.95 and pdf from 1.1):

A. this is the starting case: 
keep-together.within-line="always", text-align="right", fo:page-number-citation

B.
keep-together.within-line="auto", text-align="right", fo:page-number-citation

C.
keep-together.within-line="always", text-align="left", fo:page-number-citation

D.
keep-together.within-line="always", text-align="right", fo:page-number-citation replaced by more text (a number, instead of the computed page number).
Comment 1 Glenn Adams 2012-09-11 00:35:18 UTC
(In reply to comment #0)
> 
> The behaviour is diffent comparing 0.95 and 1.1rc1. 

Could you check the behavior in 1.0, i.e., to see whether the change occurred in 1.0 or 1.1rc1?
Comment 2 Pascal Sancho 2012-09-11 08:11:35 UTC
This thread was started in fop-users list:
http://www.mail-archive.com/fop-users@xmlgraphics.apache.org/msg18674.html
Comment 3 Giuseppe Briotti 2012-09-11 12:06:56 UTC
Hi Glenn, the behaviour in FOP 1.0 is the same of FOP 0.95.

Thus, probably only FOP 1.1rc1 is affected. In the new attachment there are the 4 PDF produced with FOP 1.0. Same case descriptions of first post.
Comment 4 Giuseppe Briotti 2012-09-11 12:08:31 UTC
Created attachment 29351 [details]
A zip file with 4 resulting PDF from FOP 1.0