On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 11:25:24 -0400
wrote:
ill using it.
>
> The HTML5 specification isn't scheduled to become a recommendation
> until 2022.
Where've you seen that Rob?
>
> So HTML5 as a replacement for the current HTML output types certainly
> does not appear to be a viable option for quite s
On Monday, August 16, 2010 10:25:24 am rob.cavicc...@emc.com wrote:
> The HTML5 specification isn't scheduled to become a recommendation until
> 2022.
That's something of a red herring. By W3C rules it can't become a
recommendation until at least 2 complete implementations exist in the wild.
Hi,
To change the order in a book, you would need to customize the template in
fo/division.xsl in the DocBook stylesheets that starts with:
This is the line in that template that generates the TOC:
So put code to process your special content before that.
You will also need to modify the
Call for book chapters
Book title: Mobile Ad hoc Networks: Current Status and Future Trends
Mobile Ad hoc Network (MANET) consists of a large number of mobile nodes with
processing and wireless transmission capability. MANETs are decentralized
having dynamic topology. The major issues in MANET
Larry Garfield [mailto:la...@garfieldtech.com] wrote:
> That varies widely depending on your market. The main site I use DocBook
> for
> is 50% Firefox users and less than 2% IE 6; A few months ago I officially
> announced that our software doesn't care about IE 6 any more, and I'm not
> really g
Hi List.
I would like to set the position in the document where the TOC should be
displayed. I got several sections, and my which would be to set it to
appear after a certain section. Is there a way I can achieve this using
Docbook (v5, the output being PDF with FOP, but should not matter) ?
Thank
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:10:51 +0200
Jirka Kosek wrote:
> What's real advantage of using:
>
> + above show funky Javascript
>
> over completely static and proven:
>
>
>
> ? To my knowledge there is no single real advantage
OK, you've made your point Jirka.
Please reflect on the nature of
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:00:06 +0200
Jirka Kosek wrote:
unctionality there is no reason for switching to HTML5.
> >
> > Better SEO through more semantic markup seems like a perfectly good
> > bit of functionality to me.
>
> ROTFL
>
> More seriously, are you aware of any search engine which prior
Keith Fahlgren wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:58 PM, Dave Pawson wrote:
>>> Anyway those elements doesn't bring any new user experience.
>> But they do bring better semantics?
>
> I think the rejection of a DocBook-XSL patch adding a distinct HTML5
> output (perhaps in the
> http://www.w3.or
Larry Garfield wrote:
>>
>>
>> then
>>
>> + some funky Javascript
>
> But without needing JS is better still. So for those producers that
> choose to use it, their HTML5-supporting users will get a superior experience
Superior experience from ? Could you elaborate please?
>>> So what's th
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:58 PM, Dave Pawson wrote:
>> Anyway those elements doesn't bring any new user experience.
> But they do bring better semantics?
I think the rejection of a DocBook-XSL patch adding a distinct HTML5
output (perhaps in the
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/the-xhtml-syntax.html#t
On Monday, August 16, 2010 01:59:44 am Jirka Kosek wrote:
> Larry Garfield wrote:
> >> These elements are not supported in IE6/7 and they can't be CSS styled
> >> there without using supplement Javascript library.
> >
> > So? That doesn't mean they are valueless. There's nothing wrong with
> > u
IMHO, XHTML+RDFa is much more useful target.
In many scenarios, the DocBook XSLT stylesheet is not the last step in the
pipeline; i.e. the output is not consumed by a web browser (at least not
immediately).
Further processing is easier if structural and semantic markup is preserved
(neither fl
Dave Pawson wrote:
>> These elements are not supported in IE6/7 and they can't be CSS styled
>> there without using supplement Javascript library.
>
> That doesn't make sense to me Jirka. They are elements, CSS can be used,
> why not?
> If the fallback does no harm in ancient browsers, whats the
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 11:35:13 -0700
"Bob Stayton" wrote:
> When I go to the W3C website, I see that HTML5 is only in the stage
> of "W3C Working Draft" as of 24 June 2010. If we are going to
> implement support for HTML5, it should be on an experimental level,
> no?
>
> Bob Stayton
> Sagehill En
Larry Garfield wrote:
>> These elements are not supported in IE6/7 and they can't be CSS styled
>> there without using supplement Javascript library.
>
> So? That doesn't mean they are valueless. There's nothing wrong with using
> those supplemental libraries if appropriate.
From all perspect
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 21:35:42 +0200
Jirka Kosek wrote:
> Dave Pawson wrote:
>
> > I'm curious why you are so anti?
>
> I'm not anti, I'm trying to be pragmatic. And I don't see what
> advantages can bring HTML5 output generated from DocBook to end users.
>
> > Would you argue against all its f
17 matches
Mail list logo
