Re: [docbook-apps] refentry "source" versus "source-info"?

[Paul DuBois <paul@kitebird.com>]

On 8/24/05 21:05, "Michael Smith" <smith@xml-doc.org> wrote:

> Paul DuBois <paul@kitebird.com> writes:
> 
>> common/refentry.xsl has a reference to "source-name":
> 
> [...]
> 
> I will look into this. common/refentry.xsl is something I added
> for the 1.69.0 release, to take the logic the manpages stylesheet
> uses for finding metainfo for Refentry, and separate it from the
> logic it uses for rendering that info.
> 
>> But then later down the code uses "source":
> 
> [...]
> 
>> It looks to me that if you actually use class="source-name" as the
>> example suggests, the template in common/refentry.xsl will miss it?
> 
> I haven't tested it, but yes, it looks like it probably will.
> 
>> Is there an inconsistency here regarding "source" versus "source-name"?
> 
> Yes, it seems so. Background on this is: The term "source" is
> taken directly from the man(7) man page. The "source" content is
> what's displayed in the left footer of each man page on Linux
> systems and other systems that use an up-to-date groff. Here is
> exactly what the man(7) page says:
> 
>   source  The source of the command.
> 
>           For binaries, use something like: GNU, NET-2, SLS Dis-
>           tribution, MCC Distribution.
> 
>           For  system  calls, use the version of the kernel that
>           you are currently looking at: Linux 0.99.11.
> 
>           For library calls, use the  source  of  the  function:
>           GNU, BSD 4.3, Linux DLL 4.4.1.
> 
> But if you look at the examples there, you'll see that some of
> those are two-part: They have name (e.g., "Linux", "BSD") and a
> version (e.g., "0.99.11", "4.3"). So, in trying to decide on what
> values of the Refmiscinfo/class attribute to support, I kind of
> went back on and forth between "source" and "source-name" --
> because the rendered content in the man page is the value of that
> plus the value plus the value of any Refmiscinfo/class="version"
> instance it finds.
> 
> I guess I am now leaning to supporting "source" instead of
> "source-name".

That sounds good -- because that's what I've begun to use. :-)
(Based on the code using it, as opposed to what the change notes
example uses.)

> 
> But what I would really like to see is for the DocBook 5.0 schema
> to change the valid pattern for the Refmiscinfo/class attribute to
> an enumerated list (it is currently just test/pcdata). I guess I
> will need to file an RFE for that.
> 
>   --Mike