Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 06:23 -0500, Thomas Jones wrote:
<snip>
I'll be the first to say that I am not a genius about DocBook interactions with XSL and CSS. But I thought that it's generally not a good idea to declare things like color and other presentation details in the DocBook source, since those are expected to be transformed into a common style outside the DocBook source, such as through CSS. The result of the source should be a presentation that is consistent throughout a project. In other words, the project doesn't really benefit from me making chartreuse and magenta tables, since it doesn't give that "Fedora look" (whatever that might be). Therefore we have CSS that makes the HTML look the way we think it should, across the board.
Anyway, this is how I understood things, but again, I pretty much just scribble and wield a red pen here. Am I way off base here, or is it just that we have failed to cover guidelines on using some of this DocBook markup?
I agree. Docbook is for content not presentation.
Upon reviewing the DB specifications it seems that the table element has been split into db.cals.table and db.html.table. Guess this shows my "old school" docbook experience..huh? ;)
However, Docbook still allows for all the elements that i mentioned. Navigate to the following pages for reference to the attributes that i mentioned:
http://www.docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/cals.table.html http://www.docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/html.table.html
According to DB, they(being the attributes) should be available.
I am not trying to be a pain here; I am just trying to shed some light on descrepancies with the current system. Which btw, i did check the documentation-guide previously and it makes no mention of any of these issues.
I agree with Paul alot of these have not been covered in the guidelines. Personally, I think there should be a high-level driver generated that redeclares these changes that you want. Given my experience in dtd alteration, I would volunteer my help in generating such a driver file. But thats if you editors see fit to need such a document.
Otherwise, we are just shooting from the hip.
--
fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
