Re: Patches
On 2006-05-04 12:18:23 +0000, Rocco Rutte wrote:
> * Vincent Lefevre [06-05-04 13:29:29 +0200] wrote:
> >The version doesn't match. However, I don't think this could lead
> >to errors. Are you sure you don't have incorrect catalog files?
>
> It leads to errors (>1500) and my catalog files are correct. I just
> don't have docbook 4.1.x installed since I don't need it (because the
> DTD URL implies it's DocBook 4.2). So there's no catalog entry for 4.1.x
> but for 4.2 (and thus the errors disappear with the fix).
I think that the public identifier has the precedence. But without
the --nonet option, you shouldn't have got any error.
> >[...]
> >>which is ugly. Also, personally I don't like being limited to DocBook
> >>only. In my opinion, DocBook is an intermediate format people convert to
> >>to get fancy HTML output, but it's not really suitable for humans to
> >>write docs in.
>
> >Well, DocBook + PIs may be sufficient.
>
> My point is that I don't like mixing up markup and layout as DocBook
> does. For people writing documentation only the markup is of interest
> and the rest should be hidden as much as possible.
AFAIK, DocBook doesn't mix up markup and layout. However there could
be several levels of markup.
> "Hidden" means to generate all the layout information for DocBook from
> the markup (i.e. mutt's own XML dialect) via XSL so there're no
> inconsistencies possible (well, almost, of course).
>
> >>IMHO it would be cool to have just:
>
> >> <option>header_cache_verify</option>
>
> >I think this should be <varname>header_cache_verify</varname>.
>
> >>and let XSL expand it to:
>
> >> <link
> >>
> >> linkend="header-cache-verify"><literal>$header_cache_verify</literal></link>
>
> >>because that's what it's for.
>
> >But the source would still be DocBook.
>
> Not the way I'd like to have it. I want to add the layout by
> transforming mutt's custom XML dialect to DocBook which then gets
> processed to HTML.
You can transform DocBook + possible PIs into DocBook (by processing
the PIs and generating other information), then transform the result
into HTML. I mean, Mutt doesn't need to have its own DTD for its
documentation.
> >One could also write:
>
> > <varname><?makelink?>header_cache_verify</varname>
>
> >and process the makelink PI to generate the link.
>
> That's a good example for the separation I'm talking about. For me, the
> concept of a link or hyperlink is layout because the target medium must
> support it (like in LaTeX where the hyperref package supports links with
> a pdftex engine and not with a plain tex engine but that is hidden from
> the author).
This is not layout: it is purely logical information and doesn't depend
on the medium. But some links may be redundant in the source.
> In your example, you'd have to add the <?makelink?> sequence to every
> variable/option you use in the text. I'd like to add DocBook's <link/>
> tag via XSL because I only need to do it once in the XSL file and not
> once per <varname/> usage in the manual itself.
Well, in fact, the PI would be unnecessary here. Searching for all
varname elements and transforming them would be sufficient.
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / SPACES project at LORIA