Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Community Tip - Help us improve the PTC Community by taking this short Community Survey! X

Styler + APP: Missing Gentext Values


Styler + APP: Missing Gentext Values


While trying to compose a document with the APP engine from a Styler stylesheet, we discovered that almost every Gentext values (i.e. prefixes/suffixes) based on XML attribute values were missing from the composed output.

This is strange, because everything is working perfectly when we compose the same XML document with the exact same stylesheet using both the FOSI engine and the XSL-FO engine.

Even stanger, our footnote marker prefixes, generated from the same XML attribute (i.e. same "label" attribute) as every other problematic prefixes mentioned above, appear correctly and as expected in the resulting PDF, even when we use the APP engine to compose...

I don't know what to do at that point: I expected Styler to behave at least in a similar fashion when using the 3 different composition engines with the same stylesheet (unless, of course, trying to use a "language-specific" feature such as "run-in with previous/next" with anything other than the FOSI engine).

But this is not by any means a small functional gap: the system behaves abnormally and completely differently (and not even consistantly in its own flawed logic, I might add...) when composing with the APP engine, using a very basic function to output prefixes/suffixes.

Any form of help will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.


Hi Etienne--

The first thing that comes to mind is to check the relevant Styler elements/contexts to make sure you don't have APP source edits for those items. (Even if you didn't add them yourself, if you started with an early version of one of the OOTB stylesheets and modified it, you may find there are APP source edits in there.)

Are any error messages generated in the composer log when you publish using APP?


Hello Clay,

There were no source edits of any kind whatsoever in my stylesheet, but just to make sure, I have activated the "Delete all source edits" menu item from Styler's Tools menu.

Furthermore, I don't have any external APP template attached to the stylesheet, which could have been another known cause affecting Styler's default behaviour while using the APP composition engine.

Finally, there are no error messages whatsoever during and after composition: everything behaves and formats as expected (i.e. identical to their FOSI and XSL-FO counterpart renderings), except for the missing attribute value based prefixes mentioned in my original post.

As mentioned earlier, I can't understand why my footnote markers (also derived on attribute values of the same "label" attribute) appear and are formatted correctly when using the APP composition engine...

Hi Etienne--

Well, it's hard to say what might be going on without looking at the actual stylesheet.

What version of Styler and/or PE are you using to preview/publish? If it's an older version, it might be worth trying an upgrade (or at least checking the SPR's and bug fixes for subsequent releases) to see if maybe this was a known problem that got fixed.


Hello again Clay,

We use Styler version 6.0 F000, which is not that old.

I took the time to look at release notes for subsequent updates, but nothing seems to be of any relevance there as far as our particular problem is concerned...

Thanks again for your input!

I guess we will have to contact PTC support (again...)


There has been quite a bit of work done to the APP/Styler integration since 6.0 F000. I don't think APP became the default engine until M020 and is now on M100. Styler 6.1 has also been released.

I would try to test with an upgrade and see if that affects your output.

Thanks for the info, Jeff...

I will downlad, install and try out the latest minor version for Styler 6.0.

I will update this thread on the outcome...


After updating to version M100, Styler 6.0 (when using the APP composiion engine) behaves as it should have from the very start...

As far as fixed attribute values in lieu of prefixes are concerned, everything seems to be fine now (using the exact same stylesheet and XML data).

Thank you all for your precious input,