fdp css negates docbook attributes

[Paul W. Frields]

On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 06:23 -0500, Thomas Jones wrote:
> Has anyone here noticed that the css declarations removes the 
> capabilities of various docbook elements?
> 
> For instance, I have some data that I have put into a table. I followed 
> all semantics of the CALS table attributes that docbook utilizes. Yet, I 
> am unable to successfully alter the table attributes and their 
> appropriate values to achieve the desired outcome --- because of html 
> attribute inclusion by css.
> 
> i.e.
> 
>     <table id="entities" frame="all"><title>Demonstration Entities and 
> Relationships</title>
>       <tgroup cols="3" align="left" colsep="0" rowsep="0">   
>         <thead>
> ...
> 
> Now this should result in the following:
> 
> A framed table with three columns, all aligned to the left, and all rows 
> and columns NOT seperated.
> 
> But instead I get a framed table with a header background color of 
> #a9a9a9, a body background color of #dcdcdc, all aligned to the left, 
> and all rows and columns ARE seperated.
> 
> To do this, i should have declared so using the bgcolor and border 
> attributes. This breaks the element.

I'll be the first to say that I am not a genius about DocBook
interactions with XSL and CSS.  But I thought that it's generally not a
good idea to declare things like color and other presentation details in
the DocBook source, since those are expected to be transformed into a
common style outside the DocBook source, such as through CSS.  The
result of the source should be a presentation that is consistent
throughout a project.  In other words, the project doesn't really
benefit from me making chartreuse and magenta tables, since it doesn't
give that "Fedora look" (whatever that might be).  Therefore we have CSS
that makes the HTML look the way we think it should, across the board.

Anyway, this is how I understood things, but again, I pretty much just
scribble and wield a red pen here.  Am I way off base here, or is it
just that we have failed to cover guidelines on using some of this
DocBook markup?

-- 
Paul W. Frields, RHCE                          http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
 Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/docs/attachments/20050518/dd5e6784/attachment.bin