Stefan Seefeld <seef...@sympatico.ca> wrote on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:48:05 -0500:
> justus-b...@piater.name wrote: > >> I don't need to switch slide masters half-way through a >> presentation; do you? > > Yes. Oh. Really? Like, change the title font, slide background color, slide number position? In that case, why not add a "master" attribute to <foil> after all, which could trigger a different page-master for FO output. Referring to the issues cited below, after thinking about it, I think <block> is a good name after all. <layout>, <style> suggest that they *contain* layout or style definitions, which is of course not the case. One might use a "layout" or "style" attribute instead of "name" to make its function explicit. Do interested folks agree that we're headed towards something useful? One day I may actually contribute to an implementation of such a concept, as having it at hand would make my life easier. >> "name" is good I guess. <layout name="twocol"> is very suggestive. cavicchio_...@emc.com wrote on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 10:38:53 -0500: > justus-b...@piater.name [mailto:justus-b...@piater.name] wrote: > >> Is it? To me, "block" seems overly general. "Layout" is very explicit >> in that it says "I'm here for layout (and styling, etc.), not for >> semantic structure like all of my peers". Or <style>, as this term is >> used for all of this in CSS... > > Separating this from the issue of slides, I've often wanted to have a > generic block element (like <div>), so that I could attach meta-data to > an arbitrary collection of elements. Sometimes for layout purposes, > sometimes not. I think there is semantic value in having a very generic > container that basically says, "These things all go together." --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-apps-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-apps-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
