Tommy Reynolds wrote:
I agree --- this is why I attempted to bring it to everyones attention. Although it seems as though it was already; just not in current discussion. If you review my example, I wanted no post-processing attributes; but found that they were there none the less. This lead me to further investigate the issues at hand because I knew I did not declare such. I was simply stating that there was a discrepancy.Uttered "Paul W. Frields" <stickster@xxxxxxxxx>, spake thus:
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 believe we have some implicit assumptions that need to be made explicit:
1) No, repeat NO, style information within the XML files; leave that to the CSS stylesheet. As you say, this gives us a uniform appearance for all the FDP documentation.
BTW: this is exactly my point in suggesting we have our own minimal DTD that takes the tags outlines in Tammy's Documentation-Guide, exactly as written there. Keeps folks from getting clever.
2) We expect to render PDF output as black/white/greyscale. Yeah, it looks generic, but it is real cheap to print versus 3-256 color printing.
I think this is all it would take to clarify matters.
Cheers
I think it would benefit everyone to explicitly declare and mitigate these issues within the documentation at a minimum; if not redeclaration of the markup language. The brashest of comments still does not remove the probability of authors stumbling upon similar, if not the same, issues. IMHO, all chances for uncompliance should be removed within a dtd structure.
However, I do not fully understand what you exactly mean by a minimal dtd? Are you referring to a custom subset of DB? Or another entity altogether that I am not familiar with? ;)
--
fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
