Thursday, May 24, 2007, 3:11:03 PM, Kevin Yank wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > From what I know of XXE, your analysis of its non-compliance with > the CSS standard seems exactly right. > > As Hussein has pointed out, however, once you understand XXE's > simplified handling of margins,
I think I understand it. It merges vertical margins only if they should be merged according the CSS recommendation AND the two box comes from sibling XML elements. So it's a bit more complicated than the original rule. And of course it's harder to implement stuff this way. So it would be better (simpler) for the users if it's fixed. Well, I suppose body questions that. > it's very easy to obtain the desired results in most cases. > > I prefer to think of XXE's styling engine as "CSS-like". It uses > CSS syntax and cascading rules, and shares many properties with the > CSS spec, but by no means was it designed to be a > standards-compliant CSS implementation. It's just that the original CSS vertical margin rules are more practical. Otherwise I wouldn't care much about this deviation from the CSS rules. > In particular, I've been able to implement support for DocBook's > spacing="compact" in my customization of the standard DocBook XML > style sheet. Then it may would be good to donate that to them. If your company allows that... > The code required was relatively trivial - feel free to ask for help > if you need it. Is that really generates correct vertical spaces everywhere? If so, then I'm definitely curious how you did it. (I have solved this thing yesterday in a way that will work in the cases that occur in our docs, but it's quite ugly and far too tricky for the task... I wouldn't publish that even for my life :)) So, can you please copy-paste or attach that implementation? > -- > Kevin Yank > SitePoint Pty. Ltd. -- Best regards, Daniel Dekany
