brian m. carlson wrote: > On 2020-12-01 at 15:41:15, Todd Zullinger wrote: >> I think this would raise the minimum supported version of >> docbook-xsl to 1.77.1. That might be fine, but we'd >> probably want to make sure it doesn't negatively impact >> OS/distributions which build the docs as a likely group who >> care about reproducible builds. And we'd want to update the >> requirement in INSTALL, of course. > > I don't think that's necessarily the case. I just tested using a random > name with another DocBook project I have and it seems to work fine, so > there shouldn't be a problem with specifying a name undefined in the > stylesheet using xsltproc. Oh, that's very good to know. Thanks for testing the fine details. I checked that works on a CentOS 6 system where the docbook-xsl version is 1.75.2, to test whether an older docbook-xsl is similarly forgiving of unknown --param's. > If we want this to be effective, then yes, people will need to upgrade. > But if they're happy with the old behavior on ancient systems, that > shouldn't be a problem. Indeed. Is it worth mentioning this at all in INSTALL? Something like: - The minimum supported version of docbook-xsl is 1.74. + The minimum supported version of docbook-xsl is 1.74. For consistent + IDs in the HTML version of the user-manual, 1.79.1 or newer is + necessary. perhaps? The explicit mention of the user-manual may be overkill, particularly if we later apply a similar change to other HTML docs (if any other HTML docs even need it)? -- Todd
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
