Daniel Dekany wrote: > > I support that showing the structure/semantic is the priority. But why > does the current CSS (no vertical space) makes it easier to > understand, compared to the patched CSS? OK, this question should be > split into two independent questions. In the first iteration, let's > say you will ignore the "spacing" attribute in the CSS. So, you have > two CSS-es to chose from, A and B (neither considers the spacing > attribute). Both shows the structure equally well, but with B the > result is closed to the final output of most XSL-s. I think that's > only good, and there was no tradeoff for that. B has only advantage as > far as I can see. So why don't you prefer B over A? I.e. using > vertical space around listitems over no vertical space? This is what I > mostly don't get here.
OK, let's say that like you, we prefer B to A. Therefore let's say we'll change the stock DocBook CSS to add more space between listitems unless spacing="compact" is specified. Now where should we stop? Why just support spacing="compact"? Why not support * orderedlist/@continuation, * orderedlist/@inheritnum, * programlisting/@startinglinenumber, * programlisting/@linenumbering, * xref/@endterm, etc? Do we have to support all the processing expectations described in http://www.docbook.org/tdg/index.html ? I'm sorry if this seems strange, not very professional, not very serious, etc, but for now, we have answered no to the above question. This may change if in the future, XXE or its descendant is retargeted as a DocBook editor. For now, please consider that the whole DocBook configuration, and this includes the CSS style sheet, is just a *starting* *point* that needs to be customized/enhanced before being used professionally by technical writers.
