fdp css negates docbook attributes

[Karsten Wade]

On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 08:34 -0500, Thomas Jones wrote:

> However, Docbook still allows for all the elements that i mentioned. 
> Navigate to the following pages for reference to the attributes that i 
> mentioned:
> 
> http://www.docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/cals.table.html
> http://www.docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/html.table.html
> 
> According to DB, they(being the attributes) should be available.

If the CSS overrides a legitimate DocBook XML attribute, on the face of
that I would call it a bug.  If you have a patch for the CSS (or XSL,
when that happens), you can file a bug against the fedora-docs module.

> I am not trying to be a pain here; I am just trying to shed some light 
> on descrepancies with the current system. Which btw, i did check the 
> documentation-guide previously and it makes no mention of any of these 
> issues.

You are correct in raising the issue.  There are certainly some bugs in
our toolchain, as well as definicencies in the Documentation Guide.
Bugs, patches, and offers of help are accepted and tabled until after
the FC4 release.  Just so no one thinks we're ignoring the problems with
the tools and Doc Guide. :)

> I agree with Paul alot of these have not been covered in the guidelines. 
> Personally, I think there should be a high-level driver generated that 
> redeclares these changes that you want. Given my experience in dtd 
> alteration, I would volunteer my help in generating such a driver file. 
> But thats if you editors see fit to need such a document.
> 
> Otherwise, we are just shooting from the hip.

I _think_ this is, in spirit, what Tommy is talking about.  For
consistency and making our job easier, using our own DTD that is a
subset of the standard DTD could make good sense.  If I am understanding
the suggestion from both of you correctly.  Is that what you mean by a
"high-level driver" file?

I want to do some research to understand the issues more.
Unfortunately, it will have to wait until _after 30 May. :)  If we file
bugs now while the ideas are fresh, they will be waiting to deal with in
a few weeks.

Thanks for the help,

Karsten
-- 
Karsten Wade, RHCE * Sr. Tech Writer * http://people.redhat.com/kwade/
gpg fingerprint:  2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115    5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41   
                       Red Hat SELinux Guide
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/selinux-guide/
-------------- 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/20050518/709a68b9/attachment.bin