Subject: Re: [docbook] DocBook Transclusion: Allow "prefix" in trans:idfixup?
Yes, that makes sense. regards On 19 May 2016 at 08:35, Thomas Schraitle <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > Hi Dave, > > On Thu, 19 May 2016 08:12:36 +0100 > Dave Pawson <email@example.com> wrote: > >> I'm curious why Thomas? > > Because writers are forced to use an ID naming that maybe contradicts > their style guides? :) > > >> It says suffix, adds a suffix? >> Do you want to change the name too? > > Sorry, if I wasn't clear enough. No, not changing any name. Adding an > additional value. :) > > According to http://docbook.org/docs/transclusion/#idfixup-attribute > these are the possible attribute values and their explanation: > > trans:idfixup attribute > > value "none" > The suffix property is set to an empty string. > > value "suffix" > The suffix property is set to the concatenation of the > inherited suffix value and the value specified in the > trans:suffix attribute. > > value "auto" > The suffix property is set to a unique value for each element. > > I would propose to add a fourth value: > > value "prefix" > The prefix property is set to the concatenation of the > value specified in the trans:suffix attribute and the > inherited suffix value. > > > Does that make more sense? > > > I don't think it will change much. It's just a small addition to the > existing specification. I remember vaguely that Norm proposed something > along the line, but I can't find it anymore. > > The benefit is you gain a bit more flexibility. Well, of course, it is > recommended to stick to one value, either suffix or prefix. Otherwise > it would be confusing if you mix it. With great power... well, you know > that but that's a different story. :) > > > -- > Gruß/Regards, > Thomas Schraitle