Ahhh, the discussion below would tend to give that impression, wouldn't it? :-)
Answer is, markers were 75% in place a few versions ago, but then Mark Lillywhite's stuff got introduced and broke that code. I think it was a good decision. Now I think markers will wait until the rewrite is a bit further along. Regards, Arved At 07:28 AM 11/13/01 -0600, Jim Urban wrote: >Is fo:marker implemented in FOP? > >Jim > >-----Original Message----- >From: Arved Sandstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 9:24 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Generating indexes > > >At 10:40 PM 11/12/01 +0100, Corinna Hischke wrote: >>Hi, >> >>> I'm trying to generate a traditional end-of-book index using FOP (version >>> 0.20.2). >>> The idea is that in the XML document source the author can specify >>something >>> like: >>> ... >>> >>> Anyway, I've got most of it worked out in my head (and it hurts (:-) >>> especially the bit about multiple page-number-citations referencing a >>single >>> index entry). It all is so godawful gnarly and I thought I'd ask to see >if >>> anybody has figured out an easier way to do this in XSL:FO. >>> >>> Any tips or references would be appreciated. >> >>I also thought of something like 'multiple page-number-citations' and came >>to the >>conclusion that markers could be used for that. I didn't try yet, but am I >>wrong? >> >>Corinna > >Markers (fo:retrieve-marker) put content (as determined by the "best" >qualifying fo:marker) in the static content. Plus only one marker gets >retrieved. So you can see they are not intended for indexes - the spec >indicates that markers are suited for manufacturing header (or footer, or >sidebar) content that is somewhat dependent on current context - e.g. what >is the current chapter title, what is the current section title, etc etc. > >I think you might be able to do something with straight XSL, but it would be >ugly, and I think you would normally have redundancies (3 occurrences of an >indexed word on one page - what do you do?). Perhaps the best solution is a >2-stage one: consider the possibility of doing one formatting pass that >generates the XML area tree. Use a Perl or Python script to generate an >index from this data. After all, it _is_ paginated. Then write an extra >fo:page-sequence that creates the index, and re-run FOP to produce the final >PDF document. > >This is the kind of thing you have to do with LaTeX (well, with makeindex, >not Perl scripts), for good reason. It's tough to do well any other way. :-) > >I should add, LaTeX \index entries go right into the formatted text. There >is an advantage to doing this with XSL also, as the decision-making remains >with the original XML. In this case the XSL/FOP procedure for index >generation could be identical to LaTeX (no need to use the XMLRenderer any >more): > >1) Place <index entry="index_text"/> in those spots in your original XML >where you know that have content that you wish to index with "index_text"; >2) Run your XSLT, and have the <index.../> tags converted into some ><fox:index.../> construct. These elements have meaning to indexer only, >which can be invoked when FOP is run - the effect is to open up an index >file and record entries by page number; >3) Review the index file. Edit it, OR edit the original XML and rerun FOP, >or both, until the index file is satisfactory; >4) Run a Perl or Python script (I admit grudgingly that it could be Java >also) to take the index file and produce an XML file that will convert into >a page-sequence (the XSLT needs to be ready for this, as required); this can >be added into the original XML with a reference. >5) Rerun XSLT and FOP, and voila. > >I think that an index will require this much work in general, no more and no >less. It is an art form to produce a good, useful index and it is just not >going to happen with a simple, automated pass. I also want to stress that >indexes are derivative - they represent new content, and have parallels with >footnotes. Some of the discussion so far has seemingly treated indexes as >being more like word search indexes, and that is not what we are talking >about. > >Just some thoughts. > >AHS > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
