On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:56:34AM +0000, Matt G. wrote: > However, to do this cleanly, you'd have to define an out-of-band layout > format, which could supply formatting information for at least the images > (individually, or perhaps in groups) in a given document.
I'm not (yet) convinced we *need* that, but as Bob pointed out, PI's could be used - no need to put out-of-band data in a separate file. > Furthermore, the tools situation is currently in flux (WRT XSL-FO being > still a ways from maturity), and is causing users plenty of trouble. > Therefore, I say we should cleanup the semantics and patch the holes of > imagedata, and maybe consider moving this information out of the core > docbook vocabulary, a ways down the road. I'd simply see that as a goal for 6.0 :) > I'll go over Norm's examples, as I planned. Hm, I feel using english descriptions (such as "with aspect ration as defined from width and depth", or such) would somewhat clarify your expectations. But maybe that's just me :) Regards, -- Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.alcove.com/ Free-Software Engineer Ing�nieur Logiciel-Libre Free-Software time manager Responsable du temps Informatique-Libre Debian GNU/Linux developper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
