On Sun, 2004-08-15 at 18:28, Karsten Wade wrote: > I think the reasoning behind it is that when you are reading/editing a > very large guide with many sections, it's easy in the HTML to tell what > <section> you are in by referencing the HTML file name that came from > the ID tag. I think this was more daunting to resolve using DSSSL, so a > process work around was configured inside Red Hat. Since it is not so > daunting, perhaps we should just eliminate the process and customize our > XSL. Lot easier to maintain than getting dozens of writers to make > accurate ID tags. :) I'll leave that to Tammy. > > > id values should simply be document unique points used for cross > > reference. No more. As the schema says, they are optional. > > It is nice for xref. Essential for cross referencing. > We could have ID tags for only sections that you > wanted to xref? That was the intent of the id attribute in XML, i.e. only add it on those elements which are targets. > Again, the ID needs to be only meaningful enough for > the author to figure out what it is, since, as you say, we can have XSL > give meaningful file names separately from the ID tag. Not even meaningful, just unique to the instance? The standard XSLT stylesheets have a configuration (split output) option to use id values as filenames. But that only applies at ... Tammy? is it sect1 elements? For any other id values, its arbitrary. > > So ... where will the XSL get the information from for making meaningful > file names on the opposite side? From the <title>? Dangerous. The title content, as well as having spaces, could have all sorts of Unicode in it. That would make for bad filenames. Depends on what is currently in use. http://www.sagehill.net/docbookxsl/Chunking.html#ChunkFilenames shows the options for xslt processing. Take your pick. I'd personally let the processor pick the filenames, but I don't attach much importance to them. YMMV :-) -- Regards DaveP. XSLT&Docbook FAQ http://www.dpawson.co.uk/xsl
