On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 23:53:57 +0200, Paul Vinkenoog <p...@vinkenoog.nl> wrote: > Hello Mark, > >>>> I will do some more testing, but is it ok if I replace the files on >>>> firebirdsql.org (ALLJARS.ZIP and docbook-stylesheets.zip)? > >>> No, please don't. One of the reasons that some components are rather >>> dated is that it took us quite some time to get everything working the >>> way we wanted. New versions of the stylesheets, but especially new >>> versions of Apache FOP, have often introduced incompatibilities. > >> Is there a list of known incompatibilities? > > Not that I know of. But we did run into trouble after upgrading the > DocBook stylesheets and/or Apache FOP. That's why I'm hesitant to upgrade > for the sake of it, unless of course the benefits are worth the extra work > it may cause us. > >>> What exactly are the rendering issues you encountered? > >> I had some issues with specifying the width of columns in a >> segmentedlist as table. > > You mean, when tweaking XSLT templates or adding/adjusting xsl:params? > Because segmentedlists don't support width attributes, AFAIK. At least not > in DcoBook 4.5.
I didn't delve to deeply, but the message I found mentioned a problem with an option that was added as a default when transforming a segmentedlist as a table. I mistakenly thought that would solve it; it didn't. It did however remove a number of warnings when building the wireprotocol documentation regarding that invalid option ;) >> A message on the docbook-xsl mailinglist seemed >> to suggest that was fixed in a newer version. Unfortunately that didn't >> fix it, so now I have changed it to a normal table (although it looks >> like the custom stylesheets apply some modifications for html tables >> that it doesn't do for CALS tables). > > That's possible. The templates in the custom stylesheets were created on > an as-needed basis. If it fixed the immediate problem, the solution > generally wasn't extended to related elements. Well, now I have to decide if I keep the CALS definition and update the xsl, or change it to a html definition. >> However if I look at all the changes between docbook-xsl 1.72 (the >> version used by the project) and docbook-xsl 1.78.1 then I am wondering >> if there isn't some other stuff we are missing. > > Maybe we do. I think the bottom line is: do we miss a great new feature or > a fix for an annoying bug if we don't upgrade? If the answer is yes, we > should make an effort to upgrade. But this involves building all the > manuals and visually inspecting them to see if any weird stuff happens. If > so, then we must adapt our custom stylesheets. If this turns out to be a > lot of work, then we might be better off fixing that bug or adding that > feature in our current custom set. I saw a number of changes in docbook-xsl that might remove the need to have some of the existing customizations (at least with regard to tables in FO). > Either way, I'm willing to do my share of the work, but again, please > let's not do it just for the sake of upgrading. For now I have changed back to the default jars and XSL. I understand that this might be time better spent on other stuff. I might revisit this in the future though. Mark ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Want excitement? Manually upgrade your production database. When you want reliability, choose Perforce. Perforce version control. Predictably reliable. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Firebird-docs mailing list Firebirdfirstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-docs