Re: [docbook-apps] <sbr/> treatment in <cmdsynopsis>

[Michael Smith <smith@xml-doc.org>]

er, ignore the first part of my previous message. You don't need
to wait for the sbr fix. Bob has already checked it in :)

Roman Neuhauser <neuhauser@chello.cz> writes:

> # bobs@sagehill.net / 2005-02-10 10:35:03 -0800:
> > It appears that sbr was never implemented in manpages/docbook.xsl.  The bug
> > you are referring to was fixed in the HTML and FO stylesheets.  In
> > manpages/docbook.xsl, you find:
> > 
> > <xsl:template match="sbr" />
> > 
> > which does nothing.  It should probably be something like:
> > 
> > <xsl:template match="sbr">
> >   <xsl:text>&#10;.br&#10;</xsl:text>
> > </xsl:template>
> 
>     Yup, I found that as well, but got confused by the combination of
>     nwalsh's comment and the apparent lack of change, and thought...
>     Well, now that I *know* it's a problem I can push this patch into
>     the FreeBSD port of docbook-xsl which is my primary interest ATM,
>     but that's obviously suboptimal (other operating systems...).
>     
>     So, do I need to file a PR at the sf.net site or do the maintainers
>     read this list? And when can I expect the fix to appear in a
>     release?
> 
>     Also, the output of the stylesheet looks very inferior to that of
>     man pages written by hand (excessive or missing whitespace, other
>     bugs); how fast are reported bugs usually fixed? Is the man page
>     stylesheet actively maintained? Widely used (I know only FreeBSD in
>     this regard, and that system has man pages written "by hand")?
> 
>     Many questions from a newcomer, I know, but I would like to make
>     a qualified decision whether I should kick the docbook source any
>     further or just write the documentation with mdoc(7).
> 
>     Thanks!
>

smime.p7s