Hi
>> haven't really followed this thread (or at least not read up),
>> but +1 for from me as i have already partly working
>> conversion and stylesheet code for that ...
> Nice. By using , we can also make subgroups, as in
> Gerzson's mail, we can group DB abstraction libraries under
> the DB
> haven't really followed this thread (or at least not read up),
> but +1 for from me as i have already partly working
> conversion and stylesheet code for that ...
Nice. By using , we can also make subgroups, as in
Gerzson's mail, we can group DB abstraction libraries under
the DB category, or
haven't really followed this thread (or at least not read up),
but +1 for from me as i have already partly working
conversion and stylesheet code for that ...
--
Hartmut Holzgraefe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.six.de/ +49-711-99091-77
Hallo Gabor,
Tuesday, April 16, 2002, 10:07:12 PM, you wrote:
> Hi!
> As now we have separate groups of files for every extension, we
> can talk again about grouping of extensions by purpose.
> I made some small investigations. We have for an
> extension. This is only allowed in and , so we
> I made some small investigations. We have for an
> extension. This is only allowed in and , so we need
> to make every gruop a to make this work... But s
> can only be in books, and so this would only work, if we would
> have the reference part as a separate (this would
> not mean a separati
Hi!
As now we have separate groups of files for every extension, we
can talk again about grouping of extensions by purpose.
I made some small investigations. We have for an
extension. This is only allowed in and , so we need
to make every gruop a to make this work... But s
can only be in book
