Thomas Ackermann wrote:

>>                                 Would generating different XML files
>> for the PDF and for other purposes (with different names) work as a
>> way to achieve that without losing the printable manual?
> This would be even worse when we have to create different xml depending on the
> wanted output. The problem here is in the xml->pdf/html step: I wanted to 
> change
> the formatting of links in the pdf from "Section <number>" to 
> "<section_name>" to
> make it the same as in the html. Thereby I noticed that the definition for 
> this is
> in files from /etc/asciidoc/dblatex. So to change it we have to introduce our 
> own files
> in ./Documentation and work on them to bring the formatting of 
> user-manual.html
> and user-manual.pdf closer together.

Now I'm even more confused. ;-)

If I understood the original commit message correctly, you were saying
the XML file was not suitable for html generation and you wanted to
tweak it, and were dropping the PDF target to avoid breaking it.  Now
if I understand correctly you are saying the XML file actually *is*
suitable for html generation, and that the html generation rules just
need tweaking.  In that case, why remove the PDF target?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to