Re: Fw: DOCBOOK: programlisting

[ed nixon <ed.nixon@lynnparkplace.org>]

Thanks, Dave. Such a diplomat you are! See comment below:

Dave Pawson wrote:
> At 07:40 16/08/2002, ed nixon wrote:
> <snip/>
> Sounds reasonable to me. If you have objections, please state them
> for discussion.

My only concern has been that we not break anything in terms of the 
existing CSS usage, i.e. class="docbookElementName".

On the other hand, anything that allows more flexibility for CSS styling 
on the HTML (or for that matter XML) output side is, by definition, a 
good thing. Go for it.

Please excuse me if I sound shrill. I have been following discussions on 
the CSS list that Eric Meyer runs. The sum total of what I've learned 
seems to be that there are as many spoofs and work arounds to get 
reasonable cross-browser CSS formatting (not even considering Version 4 
level browsers) as there were spoofs and work arounds to get plain ol' 
HTML to work consistently back in the bad old days. And the new spoofs 
are even more obscure, e.g. strategically placed, partial comment 
strings and mis-placed slashes -- back and forward.

I'm to the point with my own web work of simply writing to the latest 
Mozilla or IE 6 running in "standards mode" (have you heard about that 
yet?) and placing polite, hidden (by CSS) text that suggests to the 
version 4 viewer that they upgrade (or work with fully functional but 
1993 views of the content.)

Regards and thsnks for your patience.          ...edN