Hi Bob,
On 2012.07.06. 17:51, Bob Stayton wrote:
The stylesheet authors try to accomodate many types of users, some of
which need strict HTML and CSS, and some that want the HTML to look
usable without adding their own CSS stylesheet.
that CSS could also be provided by the project with the values that are
hardcoded at the moment. And if the user wants a single file, then it
can also be embedded into the output HTML file. If not because of the
single file, why would anyone nowadays need an obsolete HTML file
polluted with lots of deprecated formatting elements? I think it just
encourages people keep using bad practices, adds complexity to the
stylesheets and adds overhead for the stylesheet developers. All modern
browsers can now deal with HTML Strict + CSS.
There is a stylesheet param named 'make.clean.html', which when set
to 1 will remove most of the internal styling. The stylesheet also
has a couple of parameters that can generate a CSS file from an XML
source file for chunked output such as 'custom.css'source'.
Thanks, I'll take a look at this. Actually, in this case I use the
stylesheets as a basis of DocBook Slides stylesheets that I'm working on
in Summer of Code. And there I wanted to give a default CSS formatting
for the tables.
I'm surprised about the comment about class attributes. The
stylesheets emit class values for pretty much every element. An
informaltable is contained in a div element with
class="informaltable". Was that not present in your output?
No, definitely not. And I just call <xsl:apply-templates/> to generate
the content part of my foils so I haven't made any customizations on
informaltables.
Apart from this particular issue, I'm a FreeBSD doc developer and I'm
working on migrating from DocBook 4.1 SGML and DSSSL to DocBook 4.2 and
XSLT. I talked to another FreeBSD developer about this migration and he
had the same complaint about the XSLT stylesheets. He said he couldn't
format his HTML output with CSS and he rewrote the stylesheets from
scratch for a smaller subset of elements he uses. So I'm not the only
one who had such problems. Accommodating many type of users - as you say
- is good and an important point but I think not supporting the commonly
accepted correct usage in favor of some legacy features is a wrong
decision. Maybe the development directions should be reconsidered.
Gabor
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
