DOCBOOK-APPS: Re: column.count.back

2002-10-09 Thread Norman Walsh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 / Togan Muftuoglu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: | * Norman Walsh; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 08 Oct, 2002 wrote: |>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- |>That probably needs to be an option. I tend to view appendixes in |>articles a bit like special

Re: DOCBOOK-APPS: Re: column.count.back

2002-10-08 Thread Dave Pawson
At 14:08 08/10/2002, Norman Walsh wrote: >Right. So the option that puts an article appendix on a separate page >sequence will have to be a little more clever. Or we all accept that an article is in a single page flow? regards DaveP

Re: DOCBOOK-APPS: Re: column.count.back

2002-10-08 Thread Togan Muftuoglu
* Norman Walsh; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 08 Oct, 2002 wrote: >-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >That probably needs to be an option. I tend to view appendixes in >articles a bit like specially titled sections. > >File a feature request and I'll try to get it in the next release (the >one after 1.5

DOCBOOK-APPS: Re: column.count.back

2002-10-08 Thread Norman Walsh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 / Bob Stayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: | In fact, the XSL FO stylesheets do not treat an appendix | in an article as back matter. There is a special template D'Oh! Right. An article doesn't have back matter. | An article is processed i

DOCBOOK-APPS: Re: column.count.back

2002-10-08 Thread Norman Walsh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 / Togan Muftuoglu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: | So if it is back matter then | | should make my appendix pages with two column format but it does not. | | Any ideas ? | | Saxon + Docbook-XSL 1.55.0 + XEP 2.77 is the trio I use Hmm. I

DOCBOOK-APPS: Re: column.count.back

2002-10-08 Thread Norman Walsh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 / Togan Muftuoglu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: | 1) Is appendix in an article considered a "back-matter" | a) If so should produce a two column | Appendix right but it does not Yes. And it does for me. A FOP/PassiveTeX problem, perhaps? |