Geir, As far I remember the only files which have TOC and numbering are those long-long HTML files which are not actually processed by Anakia - their HTML code merely included into VSL-generated template. Am I wrong?
Having this in mind, using your approach requires all these files to be converted into XML (some tags need changing etc.) Applying CSS doesn't require any changes. And I don't know why Microsoft doesn't implement support many CSS properties which may make life of web content developer easier. Regards, Alexey. >-----Original Message----- >From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 2:24 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [doc][website]do we need section numeration within pages? > > >On Mar 15, 2007, at 3:57 AM, Konovalova, Svetlana wrote: > >> Alexey, >> Thanks a lot for demonstrating interest in this issue! >>> I think that all longish pages should have the table, e.g. roadmap >>> [2] >>> lacks it. >> +1. If there are no objections, I can add tables of content to longish >> pages, such as [2]&[5] > >In a previous life, I used velocity for all spec and documentation >work (the organization was using Word docs, with the resultant >problem that anytime someone checked in a change, we had no clue what >changed from CVS diff... so to XML we went :) > >Anyway, I remember that I modified the VTL to generate a TOC contents >automatically. Now, I used a different style file for this, because >not ever page needs a TOC (like the front page of the website...) > >Maybe we can try that - it will make maintenance so much easier to >have it happen automatically, and instead of an alternate stylesheet, >we simply add metadata to the document which indicates if a TOC is >appropriate. > >The only thing I can't remember is if I did it using Anakia or DVSL, >a XSL-like processor that I wrote that lets you write your >stylesheets in Velocity rater than XML, which made it much easier for >me to distinguish between the VTL control statements, and the HTML >(XML-ish) content. > >geir > >> >>> From maintenance POV, it would be nice to provide automated >>> numbering rather than hardcode the digits as a part of contents. >> +1. I'll make a research to find the most appropriate solution to this >> problem. >> >> [1] http://harmony.apache.org/subcomponents/drlvm/ >> developers_guide.html >> [2] http://harmony.apache.org/roadmap.html >> [3] http://harmony.apache.org/subcomponents/classlibrary/awt.html >> [4] http://harmony.apache.org/subcomponents/drlvm/JVMTI-PopFrame.html >> [5] http://harmony.apache.org/quickhelp_contributors.html >> >> Best regards, >> Sveta >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alexey Varlamov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 8:52 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [doc][website]do we need section numeration within pages? >> >> My $0.02: >> 1) IMO it is not numbering which makes navigation easier, rather the >> table of contents - which is orthogonal issue :) I think that all >> longish pages should have the table, e.g. roadmap [2] lacks it. >> Numbering is convenient for referencing or citing, which is important >> for normative docs like specifications. E.g. I personally don't care >> if awt guide [3] has numbering or not, as long as it is well >> structured and easy to browse. >> 2) From maintenance POV, it would be nice to provide automated >> numbering rather than hardcode the digits as a part of contents. Bad >> example here is roadmap [2], which is inconstant by nature and painful >> to keep consistent by hand. >> So I'd prefer to not add hardcoded numbering until really needed. >> >> -- >> Thanks, >> Alexey >> >> 2007/3/14, Konovalova, Svetlana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> Dear all, >>> I've noticed that certain [1]&[2] pages have numerated sections, and >>> certain [3]&[4] don't. >>> IMHO, section numeration makes navigation easier. For the sake of >>> convenience, you can just say "see section 2.5" instead of saying the >>> section name that is probably too long. >>> I'd like to ask you whether we need section numeration within pages, >> or >>> not. >>> Could we get rid of this site inconsistency somehow? I'd like to, but >> I >>> do not insist. :) >>> What's your opinion? >>> If you do not mind, I volunteer to fix this inconsistency. >>> Feel free to express your ideas! Your feedback is very welcome! >>> >>> [1] >> http://harmony.apache.org/subcomponents/drlvm/developers_guide.html >>> [2] http://harmony.apache.org/roadmap.html >>> [3] http://harmony.apache.org/subcomponents/classlibrary/awt.html >>> [4] http://harmony.apache.org/subcomponents/drlvm/JVMTI-PopFrame.html >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Sveta >>>
