On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 22:51 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Tommy Reynolds wrote:
>Uttered "Paul W. Frields" <stickster(a)gmail.com>, spake thus:
>>Great idea -- I don't have FOP, but this is defined behavior in the
>>DocBook standards (as opposed to any cleverness on my part -- I just
>>read it in DocBook:TDG!), so I'll be very surprised if it doesn't
>>deliver as promised.
>
>DocBook is so complicated that most renderers don't implement the
>full behavior; their goal is full support, but non-commercial tools
>often do the "useful" parts first and then fill in the neat stuff.
>
I heard KDE takes up a useful subset and ensures that documents only use
that. Might be something to look into
I would think <ulink> is a pretty DocBook feature, and FOP isn't in our
official toolchain (yet?), but Tommy is absolutely right. Personally, I
don't relish the idea of telling people what part of DocBook they can
use. I think this is way too much work for too little return. Stick to
the standards, it'll be OK. :-)
On the other hand, if FOP can't support a pretty basic DocBook function
like this, I wonder where else it might fall down. Frankly, I don't
know how much anyone cares about PDF generation for these things; if you
can see it in a Web browser, you can print it, save it, whatever. CSS
will take care of eliminating Web navigation paraphrenalia (see Red Hat
Magazine for some good usage).
--
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/