Hi folks, > You are correct, but the problem is with dblatex -- the > id="_einführung" attribute is perfectly legal DocBook. If you run the > same test using FOP instead of dblatex it works fine. > Your patch does allow dblatex to execute without errors but it will > cause legal id attributes from other languages to degenerate to > possibly ambiguous (and hence illegal) underscores e.g. id="_" will be > generated instead of id="_这是一 个测试"
Stuart, I agree with you that this is actually a dblatex problem, however, this is the way that dblatex used to behave for a long time now and I consider it at least questionable if a (by the numbers) minor release should break compatibility for a toolchain that has been around for a while and is probably in use by a lot of people. Also, the transition from dblatex to FOP is some work that I would like to avoid for now. You are correct that my patch does not actually address the problem, it's intention is to make sure that the status quo is preserved as in documents that used to compile with the asciidoc 8.6.3 version will still compile as expected by the user in asciidoc 8.6.4+, especially since there is no hint of a regression of any kind in the change/upgrade logs. Reliability on the toolchain part is a must for a proper documentation project, especially in the enterprise environment. > You can work around the dblatex problem by specifying explicit ids > e.g. > > > [_einf_hrung] > == Einführung > This is a test This works well when using the article doctype but it actually creates illegal docbook as soon as you use the book doctype. asciidoc: WARNING: test.txt: line 6: missing section: [_einf_hrung] a2x: executing: xmllint --nonet --noout --valid test.xml test.xml:11: element book: validity error : Element book content does not follow the DTD, expecting ((title , subtitle? , titleabbrev?)? , bookinfo? , (dedication | toc | lot | glossary | bibliography | preface | chapter | reference | part | article | appendix | index | setindex | colophon)*), got (bookinfo simpara ) </book> So this does not work for me either. > I'd agree that a patch that fixes one language but breaks another is > not a good idea. Lex, I agree, that is exactly why I sent this patch. Currently, language support is broken for documents that used to build earlier. I find it odd to break compatibility with working documents in favor of documents that did not work in the first place (correct me if I'm wrong here). Cheers, Christian -- 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.
