Subject: Re: [docbook-apps] XSL stylesheets HTML output issues (bugs?)
Thank you to all who replied so far. > [DaveP] How about updating your setup first? In this case, the stylesheets version is not the culprit. I tried with the latest SourceForge.net release [1.73.2] just now to make sure, and the relevant HTML is identical. I had checked building with the newer minor version release the other day, to see if things rendered broadly the same (as they should) and they did. I don't recall if I checked each issue in the original message, but I *did* make sure to read each changelog entry between the 1.71.0-1.73.2 versions, to see if something like this were mentioned (it wasn't). To iterate: even using the param(s) I mentioned in the message you replied to, the doctype is omitted (including with v1.73.2). The other issues in the original mail, i.e. a, b, also continue with the newer release version. Here, the software I am documenting is a webapp. The app is usually deployed on production servers. This is why the tool versions used happen to match those in Debian Stable (Etch), as Daniel pointed out. For 'production' servers using Debian, the Stable variant is recommended. My desktop happens to use Debian Lenny (Testing), but I try to make sure the docs build with tool versions available in the Stable repository if possible. End-users are most likely to generate the webapp docs using those versions. Of course, should a newer stylesheet version be required then so be it. You asked for specific examples and details on the other points. I'm a little confused as I tried to include some in the original mail? I'm more than happy to re-write those parts if they don't make the issues clear. Just to check please: It sounds as if those parts may not have come through for you? They show on the list web archives [http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/docbook/200710/msg00013.html] The only reason I can think of why they might not, is the five-dashes line I used to separate the summary and specifics. It shouldn't have been a problem though, since the sig. indicator is 2 lines, followed by a space, then a carriage return. Like I say, I'm happy to try and give more details; just thought I'd first better check if the original listmail arrived but with text *chopped* ... or the examples just weren't sufficiently detailed/useful. Regards, Richard.