Sorry, I am too busy atm to show you the commit messages regarding this
issue. I only have in the back of my head some committs around this
topic stating, what said.
If I have this issue wrong in my head then sorry, but AFAIK
.codefrag literal{}
stands for:
class="codefrag" element="literal"
maybe better with a more explicit sample:
<span class="codefrag p">
gives
.codefrag p{}
which stands for
class="codefrag" element="p"
which would design all elements within e.g.
<div class="codefrag">
<p>this</p>
</div>
...or am I wrong?
salu2
El mar, 29-11-2005 a las 15:49 +0100, Johannes Schaefer escribió:
> I'd definitely like to know the opinion of other developers.
> I didn't think this was controversal.
>
> I'm (back) working on another style guide and we're doing it in
> sDocBook. So I'm very likely to enhance support for it. Since
> sDocBook offers a richer vocabulary than xdoc I'll need to include
> some information in classes, e.g.
>
> sDocBook --Forrest--> HTML
> <literal> -----------> <span class="codefrag">
> <userinput> ---------> the same
>
> <figure> -----------> <table class="ForrestTable">
> <informaltable> -----> the same
>
> I would add classes to the sdocbook-plugin's output that preserve
> the more detailed information, e.g.
> <literal> -- sdocbook-plugin -->
> --> <code class="literal"> -- document-to-html.xsl -->
> --> <span class="codefrag literal">
>
> These classes get lost in Forrest's output stage, so, I'll have to
> add them to a number of elements. I did the commit below to see if
> anybody objects. And Thorsten did.
>
> I still cannot see the "nightmare" that Thorsten mentioned.
> Thorsten, can you explain what you mean?
> What do others think?
>
> Johannes
>
> Johannes Schaefer schrieb:
> <snip/>
> >>Thorsten Scherler schrieb:
> >>
> >>
> >>>El lun, 28-11-2005 a las 17:48 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Author: josch
> >>>>Date: Mon Nov 28 09:48:30 2005
> >>>>New Revision: 349444
> >>>>
> >>>>URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=349444&view=rev
> >>>>Log:
> >>>>make <code> respect @class; used to differentiate e.g. from sdocbook's
> >>>><userinput>, <literal>
> >>>>
> >>>>Modified:
> >>>> forrest/trunk/main/webapp/skins/common/xslt/html/document-to-html.xsl
> >>>>
> >>>>Modified:
> >>>>forrest/trunk/main/webapp/skins/common/xslt/html/document-to-html.xsl
> >>>>URL:
> >>>>http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs/forrest/trunk/main/webapp/skins/common/xslt/html/document-to-html.xsl?rev=349444&r1=349443&r2=349444&view=diff
> >>>>==============================================================================
> >>>>--- forrest/trunk/main/webapp/skins/common/xslt/html/document-to-html.xsl
> >>>>(original)
> >>>>+++ forrest/trunk/main/webapp/skins/common/xslt/html/document-to-html.xsl
> >>>>Mon Nov 28 09:48:30 2005
> >>>>@@ -227,7 +227,7 @@
> >>>>
> >>>> <xsl:template match="code">
> >>>> <xsl:apply-templates select="@id"/>
> >>>>- <span class="codefrag">
> >>>>+ <span class="codefrag [EMAIL PROTECTED]">
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>That is not really css friendly. Please use:
> >>>+ <span class="[EMAIL PROTECTED]">
> >>
> >>
> >>I did it like this to leave the other *.css definitions
> >>untouched.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Otherwise it is a nightmare in the *.css.
> >>
> >>
> >>Don't understand why, it's one of the features of CSS,
> >>see e.g.
> >> http://dhtmlkitchen.com/learn/css/multiclass/
> >> (The example there is not very useful, though)
> >>
> >>I added this to skinconf/extra-css:
> >>
> >> .literal { font-weight:bold; }
> >>
> >>which gives me nicely monospaced + bold for <literal>
> >>
> >>Still objecting?
> >>Johannes
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>salu2
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> <xsl:copy-of select="@id"/>
> >>>> <xsl:value-of select="."/>
> >>>> </span>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
--
thorsten
"Together we stand, divided we fall!"
Hey you (Pink Floyd)
