On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 21:35:42 +0200
Jirka Kosek ji...@kosek.cz wrote:
Dave Pawson wrote:
I'm curious why you are so anti?
I'm not anti, I'm trying to be pragmatic. And I don't see what
advantages can bring HTML5 output generated from DocBook to end users.
Would you argue against all
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 11:35:13 -0700
Bob Stayton b...@sagehill.net wrote:
When I go to the W3C website, I see that HTML5 is only in the stage
of W3C Working Draft as of 24 June 2010. If we are going to
implement support for HTML5, it should be on an experimental level,
no?
Bob Stayton
Dave Pawson wrote:
These elements are not supported in IE6/7 and they can't be CSS styled
there without using supplement Javascript library.
That doesn't make sense to me Jirka. They are elements, CSS can be used,
why not?
If the fallback does no harm in ancient browsers, whats the
IMHO, XHTML+RDFa is much more useful target.
In many scenarios, the DocBook XSLT stylesheet is not the last step in the
pipeline; i.e. the output is not consumed by a web browser (at least not
immediately).
Further processing is easier if structural and semantic markup is preserved
(neither
On Monday, August 16, 2010 01:59:44 am Jirka Kosek wrote:
Larry Garfield wrote:
These elements are not supported in IE6/7 and they can't be CSS styled
there without using supplement Javascript library.
So? That doesn't mean they are valueless. There's nothing wrong with
using those
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:58 PM, Dave Pawson da...@dpawson.co.uk wrote:
Anyway those elements doesn't bring any new user experience.
But they do bring better semantics?
I think the rejection of a DocBook-XSL patch adding a distinct HTML5
output (perhaps in the
Larry Garfield wrote:
div class=nav
then
nav + some funky Javascript
But nav without needing JS is better still. So for those producers that
choose to use it, their HTML5-supporting users will get a superior experience
Superior experience from nav? Could you elaborate please?
So
Keith Fahlgren wrote:
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:58 PM, Dave Pawson da...@dpawson.co.uk wrote:
Anyway those elements doesn't bring any new user experience.
But they do bring better semantics?
I think the rejection of a DocBook-XSL patch adding a distinct HTML5
output (perhaps in the
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:00:06 +0200
Jirka Kosek ji...@kosek.cz wrote:
unctionality there is no reason for switching to HTML5.
Better SEO through more semantic markup seems like a perfectly good
bit of functionality to me.
ROTFL
More seriously, are you aware of any search engine which
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:10:51 +0200
Jirka Kosek ji...@kosek.cz wrote:
What's real advantage of using:
article + above show funky Javascript
over completely static and proven:
div class=article
? To my knowledge there is no single real advantage
OK, you've made your point Jirka.
Larry Garfield [mailto:la...@garfieldtech.com] wrote:
That varies widely depending on your market. The main site I use DocBook
for
is 50% Firefox users and less than 2% IE 6; A few months ago I officially
announced that our software doesn't care about IE 6 any more, and I'm not
really going
Call for book chapters
Book title: Mobile Ad hoc Networks: Current Status and Future Trends
Mobile Ad hoc Network (MANET) consists of a large number of mobile nodes with
processing and wireless transmission capability. MANETs are decentralized
having dynamic topology. The major issues in
Hi,
To change the order in a book, you would need to customize the template in
fo/division.xsl in the DocBook stylesheets that starts with:
xsl:template match=book
This is the line in that template that generates the TOC:
xsl:call-template name=make.book.tocs/
So put code to process your
On Monday, August 16, 2010 10:25:24 am rob.cavicc...@emc.com wrote:
The HTML5 specification isn't scheduled to become a recommendation until
2022.
That's something of a red herring. By W3C rules it can't become a
recommendation until at least 2 complete implementations exist in the wild.
14 matches
Mail list logo
