Re: [docbook] Re: Followup to Norm's write up on numbering.

[nico <nicolas.marsgui@libertysurf.fr>]

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:17:31 +0100, Dave Pawson <davep@dpawson.co.uk>  
wrote:

> On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 21:59 +0200, nico wrote:
>>
>> PIs are good, but specific to a processor.
> No, specific to an author?

I mean: the parameter is dedicated (thus, specific) to the tool that  
should render the document. When you use <?dbhtml?>, you add a processing  
instruction only for the docbook to HTML stylesheets.

>>  IMHO line numbering step is not
>> specific to a processor, and the document should not be aware of all the
>> processors that can be applied on it.
>
> I.e. the xsl processing should not be aware
> of this level of detail?

I mean: when you put <?dbhtml linenumbering.everyNth="2"?> in your  
document, the request is only for the HTML output. For me it should be  
possible to ask, for a specific listing, everyNth for any output. To have  
this for any output format you currently need to put <?dbhtml?> and then  
<?dbfo?>, etc. Doing this implies that the document content explicitely  
knows the possible output engines (FO or HTML).

> I'm with Norm,
> leave it out.
> This is user specific processing IMHO?

Ok guys, I've given my rationale, and thought that it wouldn't be such a  
big deal since there are already many verbatim line numbering attributes,  
and that the equivalent PIs already was there (meaning that even the  
docbook project thought that it could be useful).

It doesn't break any of the current docbook scope or consistency, and the  
limit about what is user specific or presentational specific is not clear  
for me. Tell me why list @spacing, @mark, HTML table @bgcolor are not  
presentational, and if they are, why they stay in docbook.

Regards,
BG