On Tue, 2004-08-31 at 10:48, Dave Pawson wrote: > On Tue, 2004-08-31 at 18:33, Karsten Wade wrote: > > > In many situations, I'm not even sure I want any styling for the > > contents of _some_ of my <screen> and <programlisting> blocks (esp. > > <programlisting>). It should be unstyled fixed-width fonts, no bold, no > > extra fancy characters, no matter if it's utf-8 or iso-whatever. > > <grin/> Which is a pretty good definition of a style IMHO. Ha! You caught me there. You can tell by my flip-flopping and half-thought-through opinions that I'm not quite sure what is the best thing to do, which usually means it's time to pick something that works and move on. > > If that is the case, then we wouldn't use CDATA blocks for <screen>. > > FWIW, putting CDATA in e.g. <computeroutput/> does not validate, but it > > does build PDF and HTML. > > Its not a validity issue. Simply well-formedness. Odd, I did C-c C-v and got some validation errors, which, uh, aren't occurring now. *shrug* > > * We modify current usage rules to show a couple of acceptable styles > > and which ones are likely to break or cause problems. Specify that the > > point is not XML styling but quality of output -- if your code gets the > > desired output of no extra vertical or horizontal whitespace in PDF or > > HTML, then it's fine. > > -1. > I'd have thought the project needs valid XML instances. Which instances are valid and which are not? I only meant, valid XML usage. Is there only one "right way"? If so, then I guess this whole discussion is no longer moot! > > * <screen> has <computeroutput> or <userinput> within it to be > > semantically correct. > > Why isn't screen 'right' for the contents of the screen? > Or if you are talking about a programs output, or a user input, > then use computeroutput or userinput. I would reckon that the usage came about this way from wanting to mark all user input as <userinput> and all screen output as <computeroutput>, whether it is inline in a <para/> or blocked in a <screen/>. The idea would be, it should be marked as <...input/> or <...output/> in all instances. However, those tags cannot stand alone the way <screen> can. <screen/> must be used to get the desired styling output. Just putting <para> tags around the <...put/> tags would not be the same thing, semantically or stylistically. I'm guessing as to that reasoning; Ed or Tammy would be better to answer that. That reasoning makes some amount of sense to me. > > * <programlisting> always uses a CDATA section to preserve every detail > > from processing (XSL and CSS included). > > But thats the point of stylesheets Karsten, to apply style. > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204/#sec-cdata-sect > > > An example of a CDATA section, in which "<greeting>" and "</greeting>" > are recognized as character data, not markup: > > <![CDATA[<greeting>Hello, world!</greeting>]]> > > > That's all CDATA sections do. Okay, I concede that I'm getting myself into a confused corner. For maintainability and ease of handing off documents to others for editing and writing, I find using CDATA inside <programlisting> to be invaluable. Perhaps we don't make this a hard requirement, just fix the stylesheets so <programlisting> content output looks the same regardless of CDATA usage (it may already do that), and leave it up to the author. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE, Tech Writer a lemon is just a melon in disguise http://people.redhat.com/kwade/ gpg fingerprint: 2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115 5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41
