Your analysis is correct Lex, in particular:
``While this might be an unusual way of using docbook bibliography
entries, its perfectly legal and should work. I don't think FOP works
by accident, it works because it should.''
The cleanest solution would be for dblatex to translate the DocBook anchor
element in the bibliomisc element correctly.
I'm not keen on an alternative syntax and I can't think of workable alternative.
Even with a workable alternative you would still have dblatex and FOP rendering
differently (dblatex with auto-numbers on bibliomixed elements, FOP without).
You could cut through this problem completely by dropping the bibliography
section and list styles and rendering the bibliography as a normal paragraph e.g.
Example Bibliography
--------------------
The bibliography list is a style of AsciiDoc bulleted list.
- [[[taoup]]] Eric Steven Raymond. 'The Art of Unix
Programming'. Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0-13-142901-9.
- [[[walsh-muellner]]] Norman Walsh & Leonard Muellner.
'DocBook - The Definitive Guide'. O'Reilly & Associates. 1999.
ISBN 1-56592-580-7.
There are also other dblatex bibliography related issues:
1. dblatex does not render legal non-bibliographic block elements in a
bibliography element e.g. the simpara in this example is dropped by dblatex:
<bibliography id="_example_bibliography">
<title>Example Bibliography</title>
<simpara>The bibliography list is a style of AsciiDoc bulleted list.</simpara>
:
:
</bibliography>
2. dblatex does not render inline text elements inside the bibliomisc element
e.g. emphasis in this example:
<bibliomisc>
Eric Steven Raymond. <emphasis>The Art of Unix
Programming</emphasis>. Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0-13-142901-9.
</bibliomisc>
These issues are avoided if you render the bibliography as a normal paragraph.
Cheers, Stuart
EXAMPLES
On 14/02/11 19:40, Lex Trotman wrote:
On 14 February 2011 14:33, Gary F.<[email protected]> wrote:
Lex,
Hi Gary,
I am new to asciidoc and the entire dblatex tool chain, so can't offer
much insight. I do wonder if it might not make sense to invent a new
citation reference markup that can map directly to something in
Docbook that will result in a \cite{} in dblatex,
I presume that would be the<biblioref> tag. Certainly a new macro
can be defined to output this tag but existing documents still won't
work unless someone goes through them and identifies which references
are to bibliographic entries and changes them, this has to be done
manually since currently the source format is the same for all links.
It would be nice if the bug was fixed in the toolchain but given
Latex's very specific bibliography handling I wouldn't be surprised if
it objected to anchors in the middle of them, still it would be a good
idea to ask Ben citing :-) the fact that it is legal docbook and
backward compatibility issues.
On the other hand separating bibliographic links from other links
would be useful, having all xrefs in [] because thats the cite format
is such a pain that I have changed it in some of the documents I have
worked on (but they didn't have bibliographies).
There would also have to be a new macro to generate bibliography
entries that put an ID in the<bibliomixed> entity, again not backward
compatible, but it could be a gateway to providing more of the docbook
biblio capabilities so long as they can be suitably synthesized or
ignored in other backends such as HTML& xhtml.
Lets see what Stuart thinks about the idea of adding these as
extensions, he has the habit of suddenly popping up with the perfect
solution.
Cheers
Lex
The formatting is now under the control of the backend, not the
asciidoc configuration
and also some other
syntax extensions that might support the fuller bibliographic
capabilities present in docbook and the dblatex back end.
I did wonder if the generated .xml might be tweaked so that slightly
different syntax resulted that would cause the (broken?) dblatex
application to do some approximation of the right thing, where "right
thing" is defined as producing a label that can be referenced by a
hyperlink.
Not backward compatibly AFAICT
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"asciidoc" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/asciidoc?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"asciidoc" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/asciidoc?hl=en.
