Re: [docbook-apps] XSL stylesheets HTML output issues (bugs?)

[Richard <techno_plume-mailbox@yahoo.com>]

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.