HEADSKIP equivalent in ODS RTF?

[deleted_user]

Having read the online material on ODS RTF I understand that many of the LISTING options (headskip, headline, etc.) for PROC REPORT do not work in ODS RTF. That being said, is there an alternative to the HEADSKIP option in an ODS RTF environment?

I have some ideas how i can replicate the HEADSKIP effect but they mainly involve counting how many lines of data can fit on each page of the RTF table. Is there a better way of recreating the HEADSKIP effect on proc report with ODS RTF?


Thanks,

Ryan

[Tim_SAS]

In markup destinations like RTF, old listing options such as HEADSKIP are replaced by style attributes. In this case, HEADSKIP puts a blank line under the column headings. You can get this effect by increasing the size of the header cells and positioning the text at the top. Something like this:

[pre]
ods rtf file="headskip.rtf";
proc report data=sashelp.class headskip nowd style(header)={height=0.5in verticalalign=top};
run;
ods rtf close;
[/pre]

[deleted_user]

Hi Tim,

Thank you for the quick reply but unfortunately it did not work in my program. I got this message in my log:

494 proc report data=final nowindows split='~' center /*headline headskip*/ missing
495 style(header)={height=0.5in verticalalign=top};
______
______
______
180
180
180
ERROR 180-322: Statement is not valid or it is used out of proper order.

Is the vertical align option native to version 9.2? I am currently on 9.1.3.

Thanks,

Ryan

[Tim_SAS]

Try vjust=top instead.

[deleted_user]

Thanks for the advice Tim, the Vjust seems to have partially fixed the problem. However it appears I may have erred and that even the HEIGHT option may not work with 9.1.3. Sorry to be a nuisance but I've been scouring the 9.1.3 documentation and the closest thing I see to HEIGHT is WIDTH but that seems to be a Listing option and not an RTF option. Is there something besides HEIGHT=0.5in that I can use in the Style(header) statement instead?

Thanks,

Ryan

[deleted_user]

Sorry to bother you Tim, I found what I needed in CELLHEIGHT.

Thanks again for your help.