At 2:02 PM -0500 11/15/01, Norman Walsh wrote:
>/ Jirka Kosek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
>|
>|
>| This link can't be checked by validation, you must check it when
>| processing document by stylesheet or some clever XLink processor (if
>| there is any).
>
>Well, this link won't be check
At 8:09 PM -0500 11/15/01, Norman Walsh wrote:
>Adding linking *everywhere* would in many ways be a radical departure
>from both historical legacy in DocBook and current practice "in the
>field". There are no environments that I'm aware of where users can
>routinely associate links with absolute
/ Bob Stayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
| Just for fun I tested nesting elements:
|
| Starting a link and ending
|
| Netscape and IE5 actually handle this up to first
| closing . "Starting" goes to foo, and "a link"
| goes to bar. But the first closes both
| and so "and ending" i
/ Earl Bingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
| that they have to validate. I am curious if anyone has any thoughts on
| potentially the DTD would be removed and just have a well designed XML
| Schema for the standard instead?
My vision is to transition from a DTD to a RELAX NG Schema as t
/ Bob Stayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
| > From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| >
| > >Yes, that's one of the factors that motivates me as well. We'll have
| > >enough trouble with nested inlines. (And, btw, my gut reaction is to
| > >generate broken HTML. The browser ou
Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, it's really useful. As an example, I have several email addresses,
> some of which may one day disappear with the org/machine that provides
> them, and I am affiliated at least to my employer and Debian, and may
> want to write something as part of bo
Daniel Veillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 05:55:22AM -0500, Norman Walsh wrote:
> Sure, one must ajust the arcs and locators appropriately, but
> if constructed properly this achieve exactly what Karl has in mind.
Yes, thanks for support :)
>> | Popup a list to sele
Some of us are still using SGML tools to transform with. And we are not
going to give up lightly on them either.
> -Original Message-
> Looking at this URL:
>
> http://docbook.sourceforge.net/projects/schema/index.html
>
> It appears the docbook DTD has been transformed into various
>
Looking at this URL:
http://docbook.sourceforge.net/projects/schema/index.html
It appears the docbook DTD has been transformed into various Schemas to
help developers with different validations of docbook documents that they
have to validate. I am curious if anyone has any thoughts on potenti
/ Jirka Kosek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
|
|
| This link can't be checked by validation, you must check it when
| processing document by stylesheet or some clever XLink processor (if
| there is any).
Well, this link won't be checked by DTD validation. But there's no
reason why a mor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Howdy,
[ I'm cross posting since I'm not sure if it's a docbook misunderstanding or
an app issue ]
I'm trying to get some table output with the docbook2* tools (from the
docbook-* packages found in redhat). I tried using the example straight out
On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 10:14:20AM -0800, Bob Stayton wrote:
> On the other hand, I appreciate your desire to get out
> of the restraining box of current rendering environments
> like HTML. There are all kinds of other possibilities for
> processing DocBook XML documents, such as help systems
> a
> From: Norman Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> / Bob Stayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
> | This is why I think it is not yet practical to let
> | or other higher constructs be simple xlinks. The
> | current delivery mechanisms can't express that very well.
> | And if it can't be expr
> From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >Yes, that's one of the factors that motivates me as well. We'll have
> >enough trouble with nested inlines. (And, btw, my gut reaction is to
> >generate broken HTML. The browser ought to handle nested links, gosh
> >darn it. Oh, I know I'll g
> From: Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 02:58:45PM +0100, Jirka Kosek wrote:
> > Yann Dirson wrote:
> >
> > > 2. "xlink:href" is, well, much less sexy than "linkend", and the name
> > > does not really reflect the semantics attached to the attribute as
> > > much as "
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 01:51:57PM +0100, Philip U. Sam wrote:
> Please tell me how to include the Page Header and Footer in the SGML
> Document. What are all the different Header/Footer formats(like Page no:
> "1 of 200" , say , at the bottom, and Chapter name at the top of each
> Page etc)
On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 02:58:45PM +0100, Jirka Kosek wrote:
> Yann Dirson wrote:
>
> > 2. "xlink:href" is, well, much less sexy than "linkend", and the name
> > does not really reflect the semantics attached to the attribute as
> > much as "linkend" does - and my guess is that "href" originates
At 5:52 AM -0500 11/15/01, Norman Walsh wrote:
>Yes, that's one of the factors that motivates me as well. We'll have
>enough trouble with nested inlines. (And, btw, my gut reaction is to
>generate broken HTML. The browser ought to handle nested links, gosh
>darn it. Oh, I know I'll get talked out
Yann Dirson wrote:
> 2. "xlink:href" is, well, much less sexy than "linkend", and the name
> does not really reflect the semantics attached to the attribute as
> much as "linkend" does - and my guess is that "href" originates from
> HTML, and that W3C decided not break compatibility in XHTML, rig
On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 02:54:12PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 08:13:33AM -0500, Norman Walsh wrote:
> >
> >
>
> What about instead:
>
>
>
>
>
> That would allow just to use %xlink-prefix; in subsequent defs.
Well the namespace really is
"http://www.w3.org/19
On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 08:13:33AM -0500, Norman Walsh wrote:
>
>
What about instead:
That would allow just to use %xlink-prefix; in subsequent defs.
--
Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.alcove.com/
Free-Software EngineerIngénieur
On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 07:41:55AM -0500, Norman Walsh wrote:
> My point is that there aren't any popular presentation
> systems (at all) that reasonably handle multi-ended links in an
> interoperable way. If there were, we could filter DocBook to them.
Something like that maybe could be worked o
On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 08:14:33AM -0500, Norman Walsh wrote:
> / Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
> | Or did you/anyone intend to directly use Xlink-processing tools
> | directly in the standard toolchain ?
>
> I do. I plan to support the links as best I can in the stylesheets a
On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 06:54:46AM -0500, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 12:28:29PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> > A possibility would be to define this AF so that we're on a firm
> > formal ground, and continue using DocBook as it is now. SGML users
> > would be able to get the
/ Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
| Or did you/anyone intend to directly use Xlink-processing tools
| directly in the standard toolchain ?
I do. I plan to support the links as best I can in the stylesheets and
I'd be happy to take advantage of any other XLink tools that were
ava
/ "Christopher R. Maden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
| At 11:47 14-11-2001, Norman Walsh wrote:
| >Jirka said it, not me, as your attribution shows. I wouldn't know. I
| >use all of it. Heh. Well, maybe not *all* of it... :-)
|
| Yeah - I think you didn't use or for DocBook:TDG.
|
|
/ Daniel Veillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
| > | Popup a list to select an item from (or somethink). Make it a
| > | backlinked standalone document.
| >
| > I don't know how to do that in any of the popular presentation systems.
|
| I don't know any popular direct DocBook rendere
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At 11:47 14-11-2001, Norman Walsh wrote:
>Jirka said it, not me, as your attribution shows. I wouldn't know. I
>use all of it. Heh. Well, maybe not *all* of it... :-)
Yeah - I think you didn't use or for DocBook:TDG.
Bastard.
~Chris
- --
Christ
On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 05:55:22AM -0500, Norman Walsh wrote:
> / Karl Eichwalder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
> | Please, use one of our
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> | mirror sites.
>
> I don't think that would be a legal extended link un
On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 12:28:29PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> A possibility would be to define this AF so that we're on a firm
> formal ground, and continue using DocBook as it is now. SGML users
> would be able to get the Xlink architectural instance if needed (hm,
> does it make sense ?). The
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At 08:07 14-11-2001, Norman Walsh wrote:
>One outstanding problem is the link attribute names. Unfortunately,
>XLink doesn't allow the XLink HREF attribute to be renamed, so we'll
>have to battle the linkend vs xlink:href problem. I think we have
>tw
On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 05:50:21AM -0500, Norman Walsh wrote:
> / Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
> | On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 12:32:19PM -0500, Norman Walsh wrote:
> | > We could do it that way, but I think the implementation burden would
> | > be even higher. Most XML systems do
/ Bob Stayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
| Well, I disagree.
| Doesn't removing linkend in DocBook 5 break the protocol
| established for backwards incompatible changes (warn
| in one major release, remove in next)? You'll have alot
| of unhappy users if you remove linkend in V5.
You'
On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 06:45:24AM +0100, Karl Eichwalder wrote:
> Do you really want to allow more the 1 personblurb? Also it's enough to
> have 1 affiliation, 1 email, 1 address.
No, it's really useful. As an example, I have several email addresses,
some of which may one day disappear with the
/ Karl Eichwalder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
| Please, use one of our
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| mirror sites.
I don't think that would be a legal extended link unless one of the
locators pointed to the ulink element and identified it as a resource.
/ Bob Stayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
| This is why I think it is not yet practical to let
| or other higher constructs be simple xlinks. The
| current delivery mechanisms can't express that very well.
| And if it can't be expressed, I doubt it will be used much.
Yes, that's one
/ Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
| On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 12:32:19PM -0500, Norman Walsh wrote:
| > We could do it that way, but I think the implementation burden would
| > be even higher. Most XML systems don't have support for AF directly, so it
| > would all have to be const
/ Jaime Irving Dávila Latorre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
|
|Some title
|
|
| http://someplace.org";> Someplace.org
|
|
|
|
| I've seen the description of the biblioentry and ulink tags, but I dont
| know how to merge them nicely.
If what you want
Norman Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[Disclaimer: I still haven't read the XLink spec.]
> But what does this mean:
>
> What about
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ?
Please, use one of our
mirror sites.
> It isn't clear what
Norman Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Actually, I think
>
>author ::=
>((personname, (personblurb|affiliation|email|address)*))
>
> is probably right.
Sometimes you're too generous, Norm :)
Do you really want to allow more the 1 personblurb? Also it's enough to
have 1 affiliation,
On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 02:37:39PM -0500, Jaime Irving Dávila Latorre wrote:
> Hi all:
>
> I'm doing a document using DocBook XML 4,1,2 and I'm wondering which is
> the best way to include the URL for an specific entry on the
> bibliography.
Wild guess of something that could work, although it's
As we consider which elements will permit simple xlinks,
we also have to keep processing expectations in mind.
DocBook is in wide use because it is a practical tool to
produce content rendered in HTML and print. We need to
understand what happens to rendering when we extend the
currently limited
> From: Norman Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> / Jirka Kosek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
> | OK. But in that case, there should be at least:
> |
> | xlink:type (simple|extended)#IMPLIED
>
> I disagree. I don't want to be an extended link. Ever. But it can
> be a simple
> From: Norman Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> / Jirka Kosek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
> | Norman Walsh wrote:
> |
> | > Given a PE like this:
> | >
> | > | >xlink:type (simple)#IMPLIED
> |
> | I think that there should be #FIXED "simple", so one is not forced to
>
On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 12:32:19PM -0500, Norman Walsh wrote:
> We could do it that way, but I think the implementation burden would
> be even higher. Most XML systems don't have support for AF directly, so it
> would all have to be constructed with stylesheets or something.
Not knowing much abou
45 matches
Mail list logo
