Gentle persons: I know dealing with the V2.5 documentation issues is like being subjected to water torture, but they're still with us.
Concerning the HTML style, here's some issues that came to mind as I compared just one section, Kinematics, between V2.4 (motion_kinematics.html) and V2.5 (motion/kinematics.html). 1. the lack of navigation links "up", "next", and "previous" (if not the first) at the top of the documents. Francis touched on this recently. The new style does not provide for their use so whether or not we are generating the cross references file is moot. 2. each HTML document has its own table of contents section at the beginning---which isn't being generated, at least in the Kinematics document, there's just the place keeper text "table of contents"---but no list of figures section, and no index section at the end. Truthfully, I never found the list of figures or index very useful, but I don't remember any discussion whether to continue using them. 3. The markup for footnotes is not being acted on properly. The material is rendered at the place it occurs instead than being placed in a footnotes section at the end of the document and linked to from the text. 3. there are defects in the new presentation style---presumably defined in one or more .css files. 3a. "class=mathblock" sections are not centered on the page 3b. "class=literalblock" sections are not indented 3c. "class=imageblock" sections are not centered on the page as they should for figure placement, at least. 3d. "class=title" sections are not centered on the page, as they should be for figure captions, at least. 3e. tt (teletype) font is not displayed as tt font 4. the document numbering style has changed. In V2.4, this Kinematics document itself was 1., its Introduction was 1.1, etc. In V2.5, the introduction is 1., etc. I'm fine with this but it's a change. 5. And, of course, the problems of latexmath I identified previously. In addition to the awkward alignment of the latexmath png files, there are places where associated text is being lost. See, for example, in 3.1 of the Kinematics section, there's a mysterious loss of ", likewise" between "we can easily see that AD**2 = x**2 + y**2" and "BD**2 = (Bx - y)**2 + y**2". I hate just throwing these observations over the fence for someone else to deal with, but current events in my life don't give me the quality time I need to examine and propose changes to the appropriate style sheets and transformation processes. I'm getting bits of time here and there. I can only apologize and hope these observations help the transition process. Regards, Kent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Cloud Services Checklist: Pricing and Packaging Optimization This white paper is intended to serve as a reference, checklist and point of discussion for anyone considering optimizing the pricing and packaging model of a cloud services business. Read Now! http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51491232/ _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
