RE: [docbook-apps] should simplesect be chunked?
So to maintain the current functionality of the stylesheets I'd need to add a processing instruction to all of the simplesect elements in all of my content? That seems like a lot of work. I'd still ask for simplesect chunking to be parameterized, but if if the community feels that simplesect should chunk like regular sections then so be it. -Original Message- From: David Cramer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon 9/15/2008 6:28 PM To: Johnson, Eric; docbook-apps Subject: RE: [docbook-apps] should simplesect be chunked? I had noticed that simplesects don't chunk a while back when some of our writers wanted a way to create sections that don't chunk and simplesect seemed a possible answer. I was worried though that it was a bug that would be fixed someday :-) So I implemented ?dbhtml stop-chunking? to let writers control where chunking stops and that's now part of the xsls. I don't have strong feelings about simplesects chunking since we use the processing instruction. I can obviously understand the need for giving writers the option of creating sections that don't chunk. I do think that either simplescts should chunk or The Definitive Guide should be updated to indicate that the processing expectation is that they don't chunk (or it should be parameterized). The current processing instruction will stop the chunking of simplesects too btw. David -Original Message- From: Johnson, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 1:28 PM To: docbook-apps Subject: RE: [docbook-apps] should simplesect be chunked? Bob, I do not disagree with your position in theory. I can see where there may be style guides that use simplesect in such a way as they would be long enough to warrant entire html pages. I don't think that having simplesect blocks being that long makes much sense however. We use simplesect as the only terminal section element. It is, in information mapping terms, a block. So a chapter would never only have sect1 elements breaking it up into sections. Such a chapter would use simplesect. If the simplesect blocks get big enough to warrant it, then the chapter would need to be broken up into sections - each of which contains a group of simplesect element. sect1-sect5 elements and section elements are not used as terminal sections. Since this is only one way of doing the mark-up using docbook and others will likely disagree with this approach, I don't think adding the capabilities to chunk simplesect is a bad idea. Perhaps simplesect chunking should have its own parameter for being turned on and off? That way people whose output depends on the current chunking algorithm for sections won't be messed up. Cheers, Eric -Original Message- From: Dave Pawson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 1:54 PM To: Bob Stayton Cc: DocBook Apps Subject: Re: [docbook-apps] should simplesect be chunked? Bob Stayton wrote: Hi, I don't think section level is the right criterium for excluding simplesect from chunking. A chapter can contain nothing but simplesect elements, making them equivalent to level1 sections. Currently such a chapter would be a single chunk, even if each simplesect was long, leading to a very long chunk. Also, in the chunking stylesheets, the level of section chunking is controlled by a stylesheet parameter. So you could have one chapter consisting of simplesects that is are not chunked, and another chapter consisting of single-level section elements, and only the latter chapter will be chunked. Too many what-if's there Bob. We can all make daft decisions when marking up. For Docbook, used sensibly, there's no need to chunk at simplesect level IMHO. regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [docbook-apps] should simplesect be chunked?
Well, the way the pi works is that chunking stops from that point down, so you'd only have to add it to any section that contains simplesects. Still, I can see how that would be a burden if you have lots of existing content with simplesects. David From: Johnson, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 6:55 AM To: David Cramer; docbook-apps Subject: RE: [docbook-apps] should simplesect be chunked? So to maintain the current functionality of the stylesheets I'd need to add a processing instruction to all of the simplesect elements in all of my content? That seems like a lot of work. I'd still ask for simplesect chunking to be parameterized, but if if the community feels that simplesect should chunk like regular sections then so be it. -Original Message- From: David Cramer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon 9/15/2008 6:28 PM To: Johnson, Eric; docbook-apps Subject: RE: [docbook-apps] should simplesect be chunked? I had noticed that simplesects don't chunk a while back when some of our writers wanted a way to create sections that don't chunk and simplesect seemed a possible answer. I was worried though that it was a bug that would be fixed someday :-) So I implemented ?dbhtml stop-chunking? to let writers control where chunking stops and that's now part of the xsls. I don't have strong feelings about simplesects chunking since we use the processing instruction. I can obviously understand the need for giving writers the option of creating sections that don't chunk. I do think that either simplescts should chunk or The Definitive Guide should be updated to indicate that the processing expectation is that they don't chunk (or it should be parameterized). The current processing instruction will stop the chunking of simplesects too btw. David -Original Message- From: Johnson, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 1:28 PM To: docbook-apps Subject: RE: [docbook-apps] should simplesect be chunked? Bob, I do not disagree with your position in theory. I can see where there may be style guides that use simplesect in such a way as they would be long enough to warrant entire html pages. I don't think that having simplesect blocks being that long makes much sense however. We use simplesect as the only terminal section element. It is, in information mapping terms, a block. So a chapter would never only have sect1 elements breaking it up into sections. Such a chapter would use simplesect. If the simplesect blocks get big enough to warrant it, then the chapter would need to be broken up into sections - each of which contains a group of simplesect element. sect1-sect5 elements and section elements are not used as terminal sections. Since this is only one way of doing the mark-up using docbook and others will likely disagree with this approach, I don't think adding the capabilities to chunk simplesect is a bad idea. Perhaps simplesect chunking should have its own parameter for being turned on and off? That way people whose output depends on the current chunking algorithm for sections won't be messed up. Cheers, Eric -Original Message- From: Dave Pawson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 1:54 PM To: Bob Stayton Cc: DocBook Apps Subject: Re: [docbook-apps] should simplesect be chunked? Bob Stayton wrote: Hi, I don't think section level is the right criterium for excluding simplesect from chunking. A chapter can contain nothing but simplesect elements, making them equivalent to level1 sections. Currently such a chapter would be a single chunk, even if each simplesect was long, leading to a very long chunk. Also, in the chunking stylesheets, the level of section chunking is controlled by a stylesheet parameter. So you could have one chapter consisting of simplesects that is are not chunked, and another chapter consisting of single-level section elements, and only the latter chapter will be chunked. Too many what-if's there Bob. We can all make daft decisions when marking up. For Docbook, used sensibly, there's no need to chunk at simplesect level IMHO.
[docbook-apps] Opentype fonts
Is there an open source FO processor that can handle opentype fonts? I've tried changing fonts with FOP (which I use now), but I can't get it to work, even with truetype fonts. I'm currently using Saxon65, XSLT 1.0 and FOP 0.94. I have also noticed that FOP doesn't support double sided printing. Is this true? Or is there a parameter that needs to be set for this to work? Thanks! Lillian Sullam
[docbook-apps] DocBook chunking starting with second subsection
Hello, I am generating chunked HTML output from a DocBook 5 XML document but the start points of the chunks seem inconsistent: sometimes a new chunk starts at the second subsection of a second, sometimes it includes all the subsections of a section. For the attached file I set the chunk.section.depth parameter to 5 and the whole Section 1 (with subsections 1.1 and 1.2) is included in one chunk but Section 2 is split in two chunks: Section 2.1 and Section 2.2. Is Section 1.2 not supposed to go to a separate chunk too? Does anyone know how I can make the splitting consistent? Thank you, Sorin http://www.oxygenxml.com ?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8? ?oxygen RNGSchema=http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/xml/5.0/rng/docbook.rng; type=xml? chapter xmlns=http://docbook.org/ns/docbook; xmlns:xlink=http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink; version=5.0 titleChapter title/title sect1 titleSection 1 title/title sect2 titleSection 1.1 title/title paraText section 1.1./para /sect2 sect2 titleSection 1.2 title/title paraText section 1.2./para /sect2 /sect1 sect1 titleSection 2 title/title sect2 titleSection 2.1 title/title paraText section 2.1./para /sect2 sect2 titleSection 2.2 title/title paraText section 2.2./para /sect2 /sect1 /chapter- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [docbook-apps] DocBook chunking starting with second subsection
Sorin Ristache wrote: I am generating chunked HTML output from a DocBook 5 XML document but the start points of the chunks seem inconsistent: sometimes a new chunk starts at the second subsection of a second, sometimes it includes all the subsections of a section. For the attached file I set the chunk.section.depth parameter to 5 and the whole Section 1 (with subsections 1.1 and 1.2) is included in one chunk but Section 2 is split in two chunks: Section 2.1 and Section 2.2. Is Section 1.2 not supposed to go to a separate chunk too? Does anyone know how I can make the splitting consistent? What is your setting of chunk.first.sections parameter? Default setting produces output which might seems inconsistent, but it has some logic behind. Setting it to 1 could produce more consistent chunks. Jirka -- -- Jirka Kosek e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://xmlguru.cz -- Professional XML consulting and training services DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing -- OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member -- signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
RE: [docbook-apps] Opentype fonts
Lillian, I can't answer your question about OpenType fonts and FOP, but I can answer the second one. The DocBook stylesheets have a parameter called double.sided that will give you double sided output. Here is a pointer to the section in Bob Stayton's book that discusses this: http://www.sagehill.net/docbookxsl/PrintOutput.html#DoubleSided Regards, Dick Hamilton http://rlhamilton.net -Original Message- From: Lillian Sullam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 9:41 AM To: docbook-apps@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [docbook-apps] Opentype fonts Is there an open source FO processor that can handle opentype fonts? I've tried changing fonts with FOP (which I use now), but I can't get it to work, even with truetype fonts. I'm currently using Saxon65, XSLT 1.0 and FOP 0.94. I have also noticed that FOP doesn't support double sided printing. Is this true? Or is there a parameter that needs to be set for this to work? Thanks! Lillian Sullam
[docbook-apps] Re: should simplesect be chunked?
Bob Stayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: While reviewing a stylesheet bug, I also noticed that the simplesect element is not chunked. That seems odd to me, since a simplesect is a real section, except that it cannot have child sections. Does anyone see a problem with making simplesect into chunks? The important semantic distinction between simplesect and the other sectioning elements isn't merely that they're leaves, it's that *they never occur in the table of contents*. http://docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/simplesect#d0e205533 asideBleh, those sections need proper IDs./aside So, while I think arguments on the basis of size could go either way, and while it's also not entirely impossible to imagine chunks that are only available by navigating sequentially through them, the fact that they aren't in the ToC makes them poor candidates for chunk targets, IMHO. And that's almost certainly why I left them out originally. If you've got a long chapter that consists entirely of simplesects, I don't think you're helping your reader very much. If you're putting simplesects in the ToC, you're doing it wrong :-) Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] | The First Amendment is often http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | inconvenient. But that is besides Chair, DocBook Technical Committee | the point. Inconvenience does not | absolve the government of its | obligation to tolerate | speech.--Justice Anthony Kennedy, | in 91-155 pgpgzd8gyU60F.pgp Description: PGP signature
