Hi Dave,
It is not my intention that the stylesheet generates an XML file for the
CSS. Rather, an XML file containing CSS code is written and maintained by
hand in the SVN archive and included in the distribution.
The file that the param 'docbook.css.source' points to looks like this [not
real styles]:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<style>
div.table {
font-size: smaller;
background-color: #EEEEEE;
}
etc.
</style>
So it is almost a CSS file, except that it has a <style> element wrapper to
make it well-formed XML. That wrapper is necessary for the file to be read
by the XSLT document() function, which cannot read text files such as
straight CSS files.
It is a "source" file in that it is not a real CSS file. I hesitated to name
the param 'docbook.css.xml' because that might get confused with the
filename, which is 'docbook.css.xml'.
Bob Stayton
Sagehill Enterprises
[email protected]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Pawson" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 12:40 AM
Subject: Re: [docbook-apps] improve DocBook's HTML output
On 04/12/09 07:28, Bob Stayton wrote:
Thanks to all for the helpful feedback. Based on that, here is my new
proposal for DocBook-generated CSS. I'm trying to balance flexibility
against
too much complexity. I've got it down to just four new params.
1. Add a new param 'make.clean.html', which when set to 1 will cause the
HTML stylesheet to output HTML that requires CSS for default styling. The
default value of this param will initially be zero to preserve current
behavior.
2. Add a new param 'docbook.css.source', which specifies the CSS source
filename (with <style> root element) for generating the default CSS
output
file.
Let me know if any of this is unclear and needs further explanation.
Possible source of confusion Bob.
Come to this clean and the stylesheets using 'my' css file and
the stylesheets generating an XML syntax CSS could be confusing?
docbook.css.source ? From the description (I'm not fully up to speed
on this thread) it isn't a CSS file? The param name makes it sound like
one. A more descriptive name perhaps?
regards
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]
