[docbook-apps] DocBook and InDesign
Hello, I have a client that wishes to be able to fine tune the PDF rendering with InDesign, of content written in DocBook. Have someone already done that? Is it realistic? Costly? Any feedback appreciated. Thanks, Camille; attachment: camille.vcf- To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-apps-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-apps-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
Re: [docbook-apps] DocBook and InDesign
Camille Bégnis wrote: I have a client that wishes to be able to fine tune the PDF rendering with InDesign, of content written in DocBook. Have someone already done that? Is it realistic? Costly? It's doable. InDesign is able to map XML elements to character and paragraph styles during import. InDesign is not able to reorder content of document during the import, so usually it is better to massage DocBook content prior import, reorder content if necessary and add aid:pstyle and aid:cstyle attributes (aid: being InDesign namespace) with mapping information. Jirka -- -- Jirka Kosek e-mail: ji...@kosek.cz http://xmlguru.cz -- Professional XML consulting and training services DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing -- OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member -- signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [docbook-apps] DocBook and InDesign
2010/6/15 Jirka Kosek ji...@kosek.cz: Camille Bégnis wrote: I have a client that wishes to be able to fine tune the PDF rendering with InDesign, of content written in DocBook. Have someone already done that? Is it realistic? Costly? It's doable. InDesign is able to map XML elements to character and paragraph styles during import. I don't think that mapping DB tags to ID styles is the best approach to import docbook files in InDesign. The DB DTD is simply to complex to be managed efficently by InDesign. Try to open a 300+ pages DB file in InDesign and you will discover from where my conviction come from (yes, you can split the file in chapters, but then you have the problem of cross references...). I think the solution is an XSLT from DB to IDML. regards, __peppo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-apps-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-apps-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
Re: [docbook-apps] DocBook and InDesign
Giuseppe Bonelli wrote: I don't think that mapping DB tags to ID styles is the best approach to import docbook files in InDesign. The DB DTD is simply to complex to be managed efficently by InDesign. Typical DocBook document uses 20-30 elements, you don't have to cover full DocBook in custom solution. I think the solution is an XSLT from DB to IDML. But such transformation will require you to define formatting during this transformation. Isn't there already conversion from FO into IDML? This should be less effort. There are several tools for producing DOCX and ODT from FO, but it would be nice to have ability to use InDesign as FO engine. Jirka -- -- Jirka Kosek e-mail: ji...@kosek.cz http://xmlguru.cz -- Professional XML consulting and training services DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing -- OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member -- signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [docbook-apps] DocBook and InDesign
Hi, I was asked to contribute to some work for transforming XHTML into IDML and was pleased with the results (given the circumstances). From that background, I agree with Jirka's assessment about transforming a subset of DocBook and think this would be a relatively straightforward XSLT. I would not try to roundtrip. The project is open source and available at (from memory): http://code.google.com/p/ickmull/ Regards, Keith -- Typed with thumbs On Jun 15, 2010, at 6:34 AM, Jirka Kosek ji...@kosek.cz wrote: Giuseppe Bonelli wrote: I don't think that mapping DB tags to ID styles is the best approach to import docbook files in InDesign. The DB DTD is simply to complex to be managed efficently by InDesign. Typical DocBook document uses 20-30 elements, you don't have to cover full DocBook in custom solution. I think the solution is an XSLT from DB to IDML. But such transformation will require you to define formatting during this transformation. Isn't there already conversion from FO into IDML? This should be less effort. There are several tools for producing DOCX and ODT from FO, but it would be nice to have ability to use InDesign as FO engine. Jirka -- -- Jirka Kosek e-mail: ji...@kosek.cz http://xmlguru.cz -- Professional XML consulting and training services DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing -- OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-apps-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-apps-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
Re: [docbook-apps] DocBook and InDesign
Hi Keith, thanks for the pointer to the ickmull projects. It is definitely worth looking at it. Based on your experience , can you please briefly elaborate on the main problems you may anticipate in developing a DB-ICML roundtrip scenario? A roundtrip solution would be very attractive indeed, as it would elegantly solve the problems of transferring back to the DB file any modification made in inDesign during the fine tuning of the typography (trimmed paragraph, change in the body text due to layout contraints and the like). Thanks, __peppo 2010/6/15 Keith Fahlgren abdela...@gmail.com: I agree with Jirka's assessment about transforming a subset of DocBook and think this would be a relatively straightforward XSLT. I would not try to roundtrip. The project is open source and available at (from memory): http://code.google.com/p/ickmull/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-apps-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-apps-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
[docbook-apps] InDesign typography advantage [Was: Re: [docbook-apps] DocBook and InDesign]
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Giuseppe Bonelli peppo.bone...@gmail.com wrote: ... Hi Giuseppe, I will definitely have to do some work on this as I have some clients who are not confortable with the typographycal quality you can actually get with FO, even using the AntennaHouse formatter, and therefore need a path going from DB to InDesign. Out of interest, what typographic features do your clients seek in InDesign that are not in FOP? To clarify, I am not asking how InDesign is better :) Also, in what ways is Antenna House's processor better than others (e.g., FOP)? -- Ivan Ristic ModSecurity Handbook [http://www.modsecurityhandbook.com] SSL Labs [https://www.ssllabs.com/ssldb/] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-apps-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-apps-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
Re: [docbook-apps] DocBook and InDesign
Hi all, thanks for your feedback! I have created a page on Wiki to gather content: http://wiki.docbook.org/topic/DocBookInDesign I have shamelessly reused content from your posts, please do check it is still relevant out of context. I think this is a good starting point, can someone add links to the ICML/IDML specifications? Camille. On 15/06/2010 15:18, Giuseppe Bonelli wrote: Hi Keith, thanks for the pointer to the ickmull projects. It is definitely worth looking at it. Based on your experience , can you please briefly elaborate on the main problems you may anticipate in developing a DB-ICML roundtrip scenario? A roundtrip solution would be very attractive indeed, as it would elegantly solve the problems of transferring back to the DB file any modification made in inDesign during the fine tuning of the typography (trimmed paragraph, change in the body text due to layout contraints and the like). Thanks, __peppo 2010/6/15 Keith Fahlgren abdela...@gmail.com: I agree with Jirka's assessment about transforming a subset of DocBook and think this would be a relatively straightforward XSLT. I would not try to roundtrip. The project is open source and available at (from memory): http://code.google.com/p/ickmull/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-apps-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-apps-h...@lists.oasis-open.org attachment: camille.vcf- To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-apps-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-apps-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
RE: [docbook-apps] InDesign typography advantage [Was: Re: [docbook-apps] DocBook and InDesign]
Hi, Just curiousity here, but what about going instead to LaTeX from DocBook instead of InDesign? I can't imagine someone needing higher typographic quality than that. Wouldn't that bypass the problem of fo, indesign, antennahouse et al.? In my experience the DBLaTeX workflow is very high quality, no matter the technical content of the document. --Tim -Original Message- From: Ivan Ristic [mailto:ivan.ris...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 9:26 AM To: Giuseppe Bonelli Cc: docbook-apps@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [docbook-apps] InDesign typography advantage [Was: Re: [docbook- apps] DocBook and InDesign] On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Giuseppe Bonelli peppo.bone...@gmail.com wrote: ... Hi Giuseppe, I will definitely have to do some work on this as I have some clients who are not confortable with the typographycal quality you can actually get with FO, even using the AntennaHouse formatter, and therefore need a path going from DB to InDesign. Out of interest, what typographic features do your clients seek in InDesign that are not in FOP? To clarify, I am not asking how InDesign is better :) Also, in what ways is Antenna House's processor better than others (e.g., FOP)? -- Ivan Ristic ModSecurity Handbook [http://www.modsecurityhandbook.com] SSL Labs [https://www.ssllabs.com/ssldb/] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-apps-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-apps-h...@lists.oasis-open.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-apps-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-apps-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
[docbook-apps] Re: InDesign typography advantage [Was: Re: [docbook-apps] DocBook and InDesign]
Hi Ivan, to further clarify, I am not advocating that InDesign is better than FO. I am just trying to introduce docbook based production workflows in traditional publishing houses where the use of XPress/Indesign is very common. Here are the main complaints I hear from clients when I show them their books converted to docbook and typesetted using FO. #1 (by far the most common). We are used to change interactively our layouts and see the results before producing the PDFs. Example: if we need to move a table or a figure to the top of a recto page, we are used to use the mouse. We hate adding a ?dbfo-need height=2cm? in the xml and running an XSLT from oxygen just to see if the table/figure has been moved (and to verify what has happened in the following pages) #2 We hate seeing in print the last line of a full justified para with just a few characters (say less than 4). In InDesign/Xpress we just change the track and we are done. With your FO stuff we cannot even change the track of a single word. #3 We hate having to add a ?line-break? in the XML just to have a soft return in the PDF (see #1). #4 If a figure does not fit in the layout, we are used to just resize it interactively in inDesign/Xpress #5 We need the flexibility to change small details in tables layout on a table by table basis #6 The horizontal full justification algorithm used by the typesetting engine leaves too much space between adjacent words #7 The vertical justification functionalities available in FO are quite poor and/or not flexible enough (things should get better with XSL 2.0) #8 We would like to have the total printed page count without the need of an XSLT #9 The idea of automatic typesetting from XML is very attractive, but we need also the flexibility of our DTP applications. We cannot afford to have to call an XML software engineer just to have our Index strarting on the verso page because we need to eliminate a recto/verso pair to close the book on a multiple of 32 pages #10 Your single source-multiple output format workflow is wonderful, but we cannot afford to change completely the way our staff works to produc our paper based books. The final result is that we usually end up with two workflows: one for paper output (inDesign based) and one for the digital versions (XML based). A robust docbook/inDesign roundtripping solution would then add, IMHO, a tremendous value to the whole idea of single sourcing in the traditional publishing market. For what the differences between Antenna House formatter and FOP are concerned, here are a few points worth mentioning: 1. AH can output PDF/X and other widely used variations of these standards. You can also generate PDF metadata and bookmarks 2. in my experience, FOP does not work well with complex footnotes (i.e. footnotes containing indexterm entries) 2. AH can hypenate in many languages out of the box 3. AH has some nice FO extensions for generating crop marks 4. AH has some extensions for producing better indexes (avoid page number repetitions, page ranges and so on) I may be wrong, but this is my experience in real life scenarios. Regards, __peppo On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Ivan Ristic ivan.ris...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Giuseppe Bonelli peppo.bone...@gmail.com wrote: ... Hi Giuseppe, I will definitely have to do some work on this as I have some clients who are not confortable with the typographycal quality you can actually get with FO, even using the AntennaHouse formatter, and therefore need a path going from DB to InDesign. Out of interest, what typographic features do your clients seek in InDesign that are not in FOP? To clarify, I am not asking how InDesign is better :) Also, in what ways is Antenna House's processor better than others (e.g., FOP)? -- Ivan Ristic ModSecurity Handbook [http://www.modsecurityhandbook.com] SSL Labs [https://www.ssllabs.com/ssldb/] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-apps-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-apps-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
Re: [docbook-apps] InDesign typography advantage [Was: Re: [docbook-apps] DocBook and InDesign]
Hi Tim, I agree with you that the quality of a page typesetted with LateX is _very_ high, but I think it would be _very_ difficult to introduce a LateX typesetting phase in a production worflow of a traditional publishing house. In other environment this could definitely be a good solution. regards, __peppo PS: I don't want to start a flame on typesetting engines!!! On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Tim Arnold tim.arn...@sas.com wrote: Hi, Just curiousity here, but what about going instead to LaTeX from DocBook instead of InDesign? I can't imagine someone needing higher typographic quality than that. Wouldn't that bypass the problem of fo, indesign, antennahouse et al.? In my experience the DBLaTeX workflow is very high quality, no matter the technical content of the document. --Tim -Original Message- From: Ivan Ristic [mailto:ivan.ris...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 9:26 AM To: Giuseppe Bonelli Cc: docbook-apps@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [docbook-apps] InDesign typography advantage [Was: Re: [docbook- apps] DocBook and InDesign] On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Giuseppe Bonelli peppo.bone...@gmail.com wrote: ... Hi Giuseppe, I will definitely have to do some work on this as I have some clients who are not confortable with the typographycal quality you can actually get with FO, even using the AntennaHouse formatter, and therefore need a path going from DB to InDesign. Out of interest, what typographic features do your clients seek in InDesign that are not in FOP? To clarify, I am not asking how InDesign is better :) Also, in what ways is Antenna House's processor better than others (e.g., FOP)? -- Ivan Ristic ModSecurity Handbook [http://www.modsecurityhandbook.com] SSL Labs [https://www.ssllabs.com/ssldb/] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-apps-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-apps-h...@lists.oasis-open.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-apps-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-apps-h...@lists.oasis-open.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-apps-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-apps-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
[docbook-apps] Re: InDesign typography advantage [Was: Re: [docbook-apps] DocBook and InDesign]
Many thanks for your thorough response. Even I, with only one book produced using a DocBook-related workflow, can relate to some of the things you mentioned. The lack of interactivity, in particular, makes the book design very slow and difficult. On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Giuseppe Bonelli peppo.bone...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Ivan, to further clarify, I am not advocating that InDesign is better than FO. I am just trying to introduce docbook based production workflows in traditional publishing houses where the use of XPress/Indesign is very common. Here are the main complaints I hear from clients when I show them their books converted to docbook and typesetted using FO. #1 (by far the most common). We are used to change interactively our layouts and see the results before producing the PDFs. Example: if we need to move a table or a figure to the top of a recto page, we are used to use the mouse. We hate adding a ?dbfo-need height=2cm? in the xml and running an XSLT from oxygen just to see if the table/figure has been moved (and to verify what has happened in the following pages) #2 We hate seeing in print the last line of a full justified para with just a few characters (say less than 4). In InDesign/Xpress we just change the track and we are done. With your FO stuff we cannot even change the track of a single word. #3 We hate having to add a ?line-break? in the XML just to have a soft return in the PDF (see #1). #4 If a figure does not fit in the layout, we are used to just resize it interactively in inDesign/Xpress #5 We need the flexibility to change small details in tables layout on a table by table basis #6 The horizontal full justification algorithm used by the typesetting engine leaves too much space between adjacent words #7 The vertical justification functionalities available in FO are quite poor and/or not flexible enough (things should get better with XSL 2.0) #8 We would like to have the total printed page count without the need of an XSLT #9 The idea of automatic typesetting from XML is very attractive, but we need also the flexibility of our DTP applications. We cannot afford to have to call an XML software engineer just to have our Index strarting on the verso page because we need to eliminate a recto/verso pair to close the book on a multiple of 32 pages #10 Your single source-multiple output format workflow is wonderful, but we cannot afford to change completely the way our staff works to produc our paper based books. The final result is that we usually end up with two workflows: one for paper output (inDesign based) and one for the digital versions (XML based). A robust docbook/inDesign roundtripping solution would then add, IMHO, a tremendous value to the whole idea of single sourcing in the traditional publishing market. For what the differences between Antenna House formatter and FOP are concerned, here are a few points worth mentioning: 1. AH can output PDF/X and other widely used variations of these standards. You can also generate PDF metadata and bookmarks 2. in my experience, FOP does not work well with complex footnotes (i.e. footnotes containing indexterm entries) 2. AH can hypenate in many languages out of the box 3. AH has some nice FO extensions for generating crop marks 4. AH has some extensions for producing better indexes (avoid page number repetitions, page ranges and so on) I may be wrong, but this is my experience in real life scenarios. Regards, __peppo On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Ivan Ristic ivan.ris...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Giuseppe Bonelli peppo.bone...@gmail.com wrote: ... Hi Giuseppe, I will definitely have to do some work on this as I have some clients who are not confortable with the typographycal quality you can actually get with FO, even using the AntennaHouse formatter, and therefore need a path going from DB to InDesign. Out of interest, what typographic features do your clients seek in InDesign that are not in FOP? To clarify, I am not asking how InDesign is better :) Also, in what ways is Antenna House's processor better than others (e.g., FOP)? -- Ivan Ristic ModSecurity Handbook [http://www.modsecurityhandbook.com] SSL Labs [https://www.ssllabs.com/ssldb/] -- Ivan Ristic ModSecurity Handbook [http://www.modsecurityhandbook.com] SSL Labs [https://www.ssllabs.com/ssldb/] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-apps-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-apps-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
Re: [docbook-apps] InDesign typography advantage [Was: Re: [docbook-apps] DocBook and InDesign]
Tim Arnold wrote: I can't imagine someone needing higher typographic quality than that. Wouldn't that bypass the problem of fo, indesign, antennahouse et al.? In my experience the DBLaTeX workflow is very high quality, no matter the technical content of the document. TeX as well FO work in batch mode -- you can't interactively fiddle with details like line and page breaks and object placement and instantly see changes on-screen. This necessary especially for document with more artistic design. Also I'm not sure whether pdfTeX implementation of hz-algorithm and hanging punctuation is on a par with one available in InDesign. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hz-program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanging_punctuation -- -- Jirka Kosek e-mail: ji...@kosek.cz http://xmlguru.cz -- Professional XML consulting and training services DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing -- OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member -- signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
RE: [docbook-apps] InDesign typography advantage [Was: Re: [docbook-apps] DocBook and InDesign]
FYI: Nice overview of InDesign capabilities: http://www.scribd.com/doc/238960/Adobe-InDesign-InDepth-Typography Some of them aren't available even in TeX. Many of them are patented. Lucky are those who can't recognize the difference ;-) Unfortunately I can. Regards, Jan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-apps-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-apps-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
Re: [docbook-apps] Adding an ID attribute to HTML output
Hi, The syntax you want is: xsl:attribute name=id xsl:call-template name=object.id/ /xsl:attribute The template named object.id is a DocBook XSL utility template for getting the id or xml:id of the current element. To implement this in a customization layer, you should copy the template named 'toc.line' from html/autotoc.xsl to your customization layer and change it there. Bob Stayton Sagehill Enterprises b...@sagehill.net - Original Message - From: Tom Dobbs To: docbook-apps@lists.oasis-open.org Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 2:25 PM Subject: [docbook-apps] Adding an ID attribute to HTML output I'm trying to add an ID attribute to DocBook's HTML TOC generation, like this: span class=sect1a id=Overview href=foo/bar/things/Overview.htmlOverview/a/span ul lispan class=sect2a id=KeyFeatures href=foo/bar/things/KeyFeatures.htmlKey Features/a/span/li lispan class=sect2a id=sample href=applications/sample.htmlSample/a/span/li /ul ... The ID value is simply taken from the xml:id value of the respective XML source tag I need a nudge in the right direction. When I take a peek inside the DocBook dragon, er, rather, collection of .xsl files, I find that docbook-xsl-ns-1.75.1/html/autotoc.xsl in the html folder seems to be responsible for the TOC generation. I also see that line 318* right after the span nicely adds a class name to the enclosing span such that span class=sect1 and so forth is written. *xsl:attribute name=classxsl:value-of select=local-name(.)//xsl:attribute I am guessing that if I add a similar line right after the subsequent a, I can get what I'm after. Something like: xsl:attribute name=idxsl:value-of select=???//xsl:attribute But my question is, what do I add in for ??? And my other question is, is there a way to handle this in the customization layer? -Tom Dobbs
Re: [docbook-apps] InDesign typography advantage [Was: Re: [docbook-apps] DocBook and InDesign]
I've always been curious as to the possibility of 'finishing off' a paper output in a layout environment. InDesign is very popular with publishers and hence makes a fair target. Is there any way the docbook xsl-fo output could help users of indesign to do this 'finishing off'? Not having used in-design I'm far from a good source for this, but a recent London project was treading the same path, PDF 'backwards' to XML, then wanting to (amongst other media) again produce print output, so IMHO it isn't quite so uncommon and may warrant further investigation. -- regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-apps-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-apps-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
Re: [docbook-apps] Adding an ID attribute to HTML output
woohoo! Works perfectly. Thank you, Mr. Stayton. Now I know just enough to really mess up things... On Jun 15, 2010, at 12:32 PM, Bob Stayton wrote: Hi, The syntax you want is: xsl:attribute name=id xsl:call-template name=object.id/ /xsl:attribute The template named object.id is a DocBook XSL utility template for getting the id or xml:id of the current element. To implement this in a customization layer, you should copy the template named 'toc.line' from html/autotoc.xsl to your customization layer and change it there. Bob Stayton Sagehill Enterprises b...@sagehill.netmailto:b...@sagehill.net - Original Message - From: Tom Dobbsmailto:tom.do...@demandmedia.com To: docbook-apps@lists.oasis-open.orgmailto:docbook-apps@lists.oasis-open.org Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 2:25 PM Subject: [docbook-apps] Adding an ID attribute to HTML output I'm trying to add an ID attribute to DocBook's HTML TOC generation, like this: span class=sect1a id=Overview href=foo/bar/things/Overview.htmlOverview/a/span ul lispan class=sect2a id=KeyFeatures href=foo/bar/things/KeyFeatures.htmlKey Features/a/span/li lispan class=sect2a id=sample href=applications/sample.htmlSample/a/span/li /ul ... The ID value is simply taken from the xml:id value of the respective XML source tag I need a nudge in the right direction. When I take a peek inside the DocBook dragon, er, rather, collection of .xsl files, I find thatdocbook-xsl-ns-1.75.1/html/autotoc.xsl in the html folder seems to be responsible for the TOC generation. I also see that line 318* right after the span nicely adds a class name to the enclosing span such that span class=sect1 and so forth is written. *xsl:attribute name=classxsl:value-of select=local-name(.)//xsl:attribute I am guessing that if I add a similar line right after the subsequent a, I can get what I'm after. Something like: xsl:attribute name=idxsl:value-of select=???//xsl:attribute But my question is, what do I add in for ??? And my other question is, is there a way to handle this in the customization layer? -Tom Dobbs
[docbook-apps] LaTeX (was: InDesign typography advantage)
Giuseppe Bonelli peppo.bone...@gmail.com wrote: I agree with you that the quality of a page typesetted with LateX is _very_ high, but I think it would be _very_ difficult to introduce a LateX typesetting phase in a production worflow of a traditional publishing house. In other environment this could definitely be a good solution. I am told that many publishing houses routinely use LaTeX. I have dealt with one (Springer). One catch, however, might be that dblatex's output contains some LaTeX commands that refer to dblatex-specific stylesheets; often publishers that use LaTeX have their own in-house style sheets, I think. Introducing a LaTeX phase to a publishing house that is *not* already familiar with it is of course a different problem... Mike Maxwell - To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-apps-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-apps-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
Re: [docbook-apps] InDesign typography advantage [Was: Re: [docbook-apps] DocBook and InDesign]
Jirka Kosek ji...@kosek.cz wrote: TeX as well FO work in batch mode -- you can't interactively fiddle with details like line and page breaks and object placement and instantly see changes on-screen. This necessary especially for document with more artistic design. There are LaTeX editors that allow you to do this via a two-pane editor, with the LaTeX editor in one pane and a PDF view in the other. LEd is an example: http://www.latexeditor.org I've never used such an editor, so I can't vouch for whether it is instant. Perhaps one could create such a DocBook editor. (XMLmind allows you to work in a partially wysiwyg environment, although they're quick to point out that it's very partial; and it certainly doesn't allow low-level fiddling.) Also I'm not sure whether pdfTeX implementation of hz-algorithm and hanging punctuation is on a par with one available in InDesign. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hz-program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanging_punctuation XeTeX (a Unicode-enabled version of LaTeX) has an experimental implementation of character protrusion or margin kerning (new in the last few months). Not being a typographer (I almost wrote typologist, an area that I do claim to know a little about!), I'm not sure how much that answers your question. Perhaps more relevant, there is a discussion thread here: http://scripts.sil.org/xetex about the relative uses and merits of Xe(La)TeX and InDesign. Some of the points would also pertain to DocBook in general. Mike Maxwell - To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-apps-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-apps-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
