Re: DOCBOOK: alphabetical list of docbook 4.2 elements anywhere?

2002-08-15 Thread Georges Schmitz
Dave Pawson wrote: At 01:59 14/08/2002, you wrote: c) after detecting that member is missing, I controlled its half-brothers: varlistentry, term and seglistitem are missing too in the refcards Question. When using docbook, is it the 'main' elements that require most thought, or

Re: Fw: DOCBOOK: programlisting

2002-08-15 Thread Dave Pawson
At 00:17 15/08/2002, Bob Stayton wrote: I notice that the HTML 4.0 spec says the class attribute can be a space-separated list of names. That sounds like you could have both element name and role value as class values in a div class attribute. But how do you write CSS to deal with that, and do

Re: Fw: DOCBOOK: programlisting

2002-08-15 Thread Bob Stayton
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 02:41:58PM -0500, John R. Daily wrote: At (time_t)1029465981 Dave Pawson wrote: At 00:17 15/08/2002, Bob Stayton wrote: I notice that the HTML 4.0 spec says the class attribute can be a space-separated list of names. That sounds like you could have both

Re: Fw: DOCBOOK: programlisting

2002-08-15 Thread John R. Daily
At (time_t)1029443686 Bob Stayton wrote: Is that really a will work, or more of a should work? My not-extensive experience in writing CSS is that different browsers support different subsets of CSS1, let alone CSS2. I found it hard to have one stylesheet that worked as it should in all

Re: Fw: DOCBOOK: programlisting

2002-08-15 Thread John R. Daily
At (time_t)1029465981 Dave Pawson wrote: At 00:17 15/08/2002, Bob Stayton wrote: I notice that the HTML 4.0 spec says the class attribute can be a space-separated list of names. That sounds like you could have both element name and role value as class values in a div class attribute.

Re: Fw: DOCBOOK: programlisting

2002-08-15 Thread John R. Daily
At (time_t)1029444941 I libeled: Well, blast. I figured something that straightforward would be well-supported, but you're right to be concerned. According to http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/css/supportkey/syntax.htm IE does not support this. According to that table, there is a long