On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 10:18:11AM +0200, Hojtsy G�bor wrote: > >> 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. It was not posible the last 5 years, so I don't see to change the manual in that direction. What is your problem with that? The syntax <void/> was not used in the documentation. This doesn't mean, we should not improve our XML files, but to change all <parameter>void</parameter> to <void/> is the wrong direction. -Egon -- All known books about PHP and related books: http://php.net/books.php Concert Band of the University of Hohenheim: http://www.concert-band.de/ First and second bestselling book in German: http://www.php-buch.de/
