If a topic has an attached file, including the topic via %INCLUDE will break enumeration or table formatting. The resulting output will restart enumeration on the next entry or break the table. If enumeration or tabling is not used, an additional space will be included in the listing.
Example of output effect on 4.1.2:
http://netscale.cse.nd.edu/twiki/bin/view/Main/PubsStriegel
Note the listings in the Journal subsection that have PDFs directly attached incur an extra spacing (rogue br?) while the one employing the PDF icon that links to an external site (no attachment directly on the topic) enumerates just fine. Entries included inside a table will break the table and display the pipe (|) on both sides if listed as:
| %INCLUDE{"Topic"}% |
will result in:
| TOPIC Text |
instead of:
--
TWiki:Main/AaronStriegel - 07 Aug 2007
An INCLUDE of a topic does not include the attachments; they are only shown when you view the topic directly. I suspect you probably have a vertical bar somewhere in the text of the included topic, but you haven't provided a testcase so it's impossible to verify.
Please provide a testcase. You can use the
LitterTray web on this TWiki.
CC
Example is posted at
Item4439Test1 that clearly demonstrates the bug identically to the above given link
--
TWiki:Main.AaronStriegel - 10 Aug 2007
Link is broken, direct link listed below:
http://develop.twiki.org/~twiki4/cgi-bin/view/LitterTray/Item4439Test1
--
TWiki:Main.AaronStriegel - 10 Aug 2007
Thanks Aaron. It's probable that the template is including a training \n when an attachment exists, even though there is no attachment table.
CC
This needs to be fixed for 4.2. Raised to Urgent.
CC
Another tough call. The behaviour Aaron describes is indeed the case; though it is fortuitous rather than planned that it works when there is no attachment. if you go back to Cairo, you find that it doesn't work, either.
I'm going to fix it, so that an INCLUDE doesn't import whitespace at the end of topic text, because it seems more useful to me. There is a risk of it breaking an existing TWiki application; however I think this is a low risk. The more testing we do on this, the better!
CC