>> Egon, we still can't read the reasons why this
>> need to be reverted? Until the reasons, I think it
>> is unnecessary to revert the changes.
>
>I have seen that the transformation of <void/> looks very
>ugly. There are other reasons, because we have some DSSSL
>stylesheets which doesn't cover the short <void/> IIRC.
Should we stop improving the xml files, because our DSSSL
style sheets are not perfectly actual to handle the
presentation side? In XML the goal is to present the things
with the meanning, and not to look at the output the first time.
You know well the docbook manual (maybe others are not, so
an extract whould be good here):
Processing expectations
-----------------------
The Void element produces generated text that indicates
the function has no arguments (or returns nothing).
The exact generated text may vary. One common result
is void.
So the DocBook docs says, one common result is "void".
Then we can implement it for this tag to print void.
As <void/> is the best syntax according to docbook,
there is no need to revert the changes, it would
be a step backward. We should go one step further,
and look into how the void word can be printed
with DSSSL IMHO.
Goba
