-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'm trying to recap where we stand on this proposal.
There seems to be general agreement that it's a good idea. The
question is, exactly what should the markup look like?
My favorite combination of proposals so far is:
1. Procedure remains
Am Freitag, 11. Oktober 2002 17:25 schrieb Stephan Wiesner:
exercises with the same solution. I then developed a style sheet to
create documents with the exercises displayed in the text flow and the
solutions at the end (both linked), or not at all, depending on the
purpose.
This is exactly
I think I like the idea of containment better than ID/IDREF for
associating exercises and solutions.
Would this work?
exercise
question.../question
answer.../answer
/exercise
I tend to agree. Such a structure would be useful to me too.
Perhaps these might be useful?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
/ Sabine Ocker - Sun Microsystems [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say:
| 1. Procedure remains unchanged
|
| If you need alternatives at the top level, don't you really have
| different procedures?
|
| Norm, can you please
* [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 11 Oct, 2002 wrote:
I tend to agree. Such a structure would be useful to me too.
So far yes
Perhaps these might be useful? (or something similar)...
Yes but every lesson (call it module/section whatever) should also have
performance requirements
Am Freitag, 11. Oktober 2002 18:25 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Perhaps these might be useful? (or something similar)...
exercise
exerciseinfo...as in sectioninfo.../exerciseinfo
setup...information on what is needed to setup the exercise,
student data etc.../setup
Bob,
Thanks a lot for your help. I'm getting this problem when I run xalan from
ant but outside of ant the TOC is being generated fine.
I downloaded instant saxon and ran it with the following command and the toc
came out fine.
saxon. tdocbook.xml chunk.xsl
I then tried to use xalan
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 05:43:38PM -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote:
(1) You add support for ?if? and friends to xsltproc. Probably the
fastest route to a complete solution.
(2) You tell me you'll take a patch from me to implement them. I'd
have to learn the xsltproc code, so it
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 08:52:01AM +0100, Tim Waugh wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 05:43:38PM -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote:
(1) You add support for ?if? and friends to xsltproc. Probably the
fastest route to a complete solution.
(2) You tell me you'll take a patch from me to
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 04:22:50AM -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote:
Now if a number of people did voice in saying that's the kind of processing
they really need, that there is a clean and public description with
review of the suggested extension, then I would certainly be an early
implementor
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 04:41:41AM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Daniel Veillard [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Now to be relatively specific about ?if? as much as I can since I
don't have any clear picture of how the selection is actually done, it seems
to be in the line of the previously found
Bob said:
Looks like nested variablelists should be the
FO-Processor-Challenge-Of-The_Week. 8^)
snip
I used three processors and got three different results
when using 'variablelist.as.blocks'.
PassiveTeX indented nothing.
FOP indented the first level paragraphs and the second
level terms
Daniel Veillard [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
You want to do
XML process X xmlsubset transform web or print
process X standalone can't be done easilly with XSLT, yes.
XML process X + transform web or print
can be done with XSLT assuming the way you tags
Daniel Veillard [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm not convinced that one need acces to the DocType to conditionalize
*processing* . And I'm definitely convinced that it's useless to try to
add support for an unstructured processing within an XML toolkit.
The problem with not being able to see the
Daniel Veillard [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Now to be relatively specific about ?if? as much as I can since I
don't have any clear picture of how the selection is actually done, it seems
to be in the line of the previously found standard extention abuses
like #pragma foobar for Winblows C compilers
Daniel Veillard [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Probably 1.0.22 usually within one month.
Thanks.
Honnestly 1/ and 2/ are not acceptable. Now if someone decides
to standardize something like ?if? then it's a big mess.
Moreover if this can be done by a small and fast external preprocessing,
why try
Daniel Veillard [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 05:38:02AM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
xmlif knows nothing about the XML structure of the document. All it `sees'
is the processing instructions what is otherwise, from its point of view,
a featureless byte stream.
Then
Daniel Veillard [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
You know, there's reason people keep re-inventing mechanisms for this.
It's because they need to get work done -- and getting work done often
means wanting to conditionalize documents without spending days on some
elaborate custom XSLT hack.
But
--oyUTqETQ0mS9luUI
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Tim Waugh [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I don't know what Eric's complaint with the existing ![%cond;[..]]
mechanism is. Eric?
Huh? I thought that feature was SGML
First, let me say that as a newcomer to the docbook-apps and docbook
mailing lists, it is not at all clear to me where I should be posting
this query, but I have to start somewhere...
Some colleagues and I are writing some documentation using DocBook.
Currently, we're using XML markup and the
Daniel Veillard [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 06:14:59PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
What would you consider a complete solution to this problem? I'm not
wedded to xmlif itself, I just need to get some work done that
requires being able to conditionalize stuff. If you
Daniel Veillard [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This will be in the next libxslt release.
Can you give us a rough timeframe? And what do you expect the release number
to be?
While we're talking command-line options, Daniel, I have a small request.
It's for a small hook in xsltproc that would address a
At 11:33 11/10/2002, Daniel Veillard wrote:
I don't affirm or deny anything w.r.t. conditionalization needs. I'm
just stating my position as the guys who implement and maintain the
friggin' code, okay !
Corr, he's a bad tempered old b isn't he :-)
I'm not convinced that one need acces
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
/ Bob Stayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say:
| A quick scan of the Java code for the callout extension
| in Saxon makes no mention of 'linkend' or 'href', so
| it appears to not be supported.
[...]
| You could file a feature request on the
|
did not get it, maybe i need to drink some more
coffee ;-)
does this mean the missing crosslinking feature
that comes along with the programlistingco/
is a desired behaviour?
or does that mean you just forgot to included
it in you java code and i might need to fill a
feature request?
i know
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Patrice DUMAS - DOCT) was heard to say:
| book.xml:9: warning: failed to load external entity
|../../docbook/ebnf/ebnf-4.2CR1.dtd
| ]
You need the custom DTD that I'm using for the book. Uhm, the best thing to do is
probably
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
/ Daniel Veillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say:
| I would really prefer to get DocBook fixed to allow proper conditionalization
| at the *markup* level (if the current solution is not sufficient for
| users' needs like Eric), which then will
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This is a hard problem. If it was an easy problem, we wouldn't have to
keep reinventing solutions for it.
Right up front I think you have to choose: are you going to process
XML or are you going to process a character stream. Both are useful
and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
/ Eric S. Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say:
| It's harder to write the else cases in this style, but I think a
| little creativity in the syntax of the condition attributes might
| alleviate some of those problems.
|
| Propose a syntax?
Due to recent problems with massaging my PDF outputs, I've been fiddling
with attribute-set functions. I don't understand the FO
admonition.properties attribute-set (DocBook XSL 1.56.1). The fo/param.xsl
has the following:
xsl:attribute-set name=admonition.properties/
Is something missing?
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 02:38:29PM -0500, Dennis Grace wrote:
Due to recent problems with massaging my PDF outputs, I've been fiddling
with attribute-set functions. I don't understand the FO
admonition.properties attribute-set (DocBook XSL 1.56.1). The fo/param.xsl
has the following:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 05:38:02AM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
xmlif knows nothing about the XML structure of the document. All it `sees'
is the processing instructions what is otherwise, from its point of view,
a featureless byte stream.
Then there is no good reason to implement it in an
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 06:36:21AM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Daniel Veillard [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm not convinced that one need acces to the DocType to conditionalize
*processing* . And I'm definitely convinced that it's useless to try to
add support for an unstructured processing
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 06:09:37AM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
So I've written a tool that throws away that whole level of structure and
gets the job done. I'd sure like to develop a better solution, but you
seem to be intent on denying there is a problem.
I don't affirm or deny anything
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
/ Norman Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say:
| 5. You know, I really want this at the URI level.
|
|!DOCTYPE book PUBLIC ... ...
|book
| ...
| xi:include
|href=http://localhost/profile/path/to/document.xml?condition='html'/
|
Norman Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
1. Entities should be expanded. If users process
!DOCTYPE book PUBLIC ... ... [
!ENTITY chap1.xml SYSTEM chap1.xml
]
book
...
chap1;
/book
They're going to expect the profiling to apply to the content of
chap1;, not just
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
/ Eric S. Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say:
| Norman Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
| I think the right answer is a specialized XML parser that performs a
| variant of the identity transformation. In fact, it does exactly what
| Jirka's profiling
Norman Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I think the right answer is a specialized XML parser that performs a
variant of the identity transformation. In fact, it does exactly what
Jirka's profiling code does except that it has a funky serializer that
outputs the !DOCTYPE declaration and the internal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
/ Eric S. Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say:
| Norman Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
| 1. Entities should be expanded. If users process
[...]
| Right. I know this. This is why I suggested that the facility might belong in
| the XSLT engine
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
/ Eric S. Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say:
| Norman Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
| I think I'm willing to live without else. If I want else, I think the
| right answer is a special-purpose XML vocabulary:
|
| chapter
| prof:choose
|
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 03:09:05PM -0400, Norman Walsh wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Some more thoughts about this issue...
1. Entities should be expanded. If users process
!DOCTYPE book PUBLIC ... ... [
!ENTITY chap1.xml SYSTEM chap1.xml
]
book
--9Ek0hoCL9XbhcSqy
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Norman Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I think I'm willing to live without else. If I want else, I think the
right answer is a special-purpose XML vocabulary:
=20
--vkogqOf2sHV7VnPd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Norman Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
What I don't understand off the top of my head Eric, is why you
abandoned the XML approach when you abandoned XSLT.
Well...I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
/ Eric S. Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say:
| Norman Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
| That's valid when the PIs are left in, but results in a non-XML
| document when profiled. My model forces the input to be well-formed
| XML and guarantees that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
/ Bob Stayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say:
| 3. OTOH, I really do want this to happen before validation. That way I can write
|
|chapter
| title condition=printPrint Title/title
| title condition=onlineOnline Title/title
|
|
45 matches
Mail list logo
