#379 man: different copyright/legalnotice for product and manpage

output: manpages
closed-fixed
XSL (399)
5
2007-07-11
2007-03-29
Daniel Leidert
No

This one was raised up at http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2007/03/msg00336.html.

It is currently not possible o divide between copyright and legalnotice for upstream software (or "the product") and the manpage. The copyright.section element processes all copyright elements and then all legalnotice elements. There is no way to write down separate copyright and legal notices for the product and the manpage.

One idea to solve this could be to use the role attribute and process first role="product" and then "role="manpage". Another idea could be to use a processing instruction. What is your opinion?

Regards, Daniel

Discussion

  • Logged In: YES
    user_id=118135
    Originator: NO

    Hi Daniel,

    I don't want to further formalize the use of role in any context within stylesheets (adding support for, e.g., emphasis@role=bold, was a mistake that should not be repeated. The purpose of role is as a hook for end users to use in their own customizations, not for us to use in the standard stylesheet distribution. And this is not something that should require the use of a processing instruction either.

    What I whould probably have the stylesheets doing instead is to just output all copyright and legalnotice instances in the exact same document order in which they appear in the document. The fact that I didn't have it doing that already is just because it was on oversight on my part (in other words, because I was lazy). But it is a trivial thing to just have the stylesheet output them in exact same order in which they appear in the source.

    Will that satisfy the requirement?

    --Mike

     
  • Daniel Leidert
    Daniel Leidert
    2007-03-29

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=1102637
    Originator: YES

    I've tried if that works, before I wrote this report and then I missed, that this would fit the needs :)

    Yes, this would be enough. Just a note for copyright: If following-sibling=copyright, there should not be an empty line between the copyright statements. If the following sibling is not a copyright elemtn, there should be an empty line as separator. Or what do you think?

     
  • Logged In: YES
    user_id=118135
    Originator: NO

    I think I'm inclined to just put empty lines after each copyright statement in a .PP (which will cause a blank line to be generated before it) because trying to do otherwise will result in more complicated (and more fragile) code. And I don't see it's worth it for the marginal aesthetic improvement it might provide.

     
  • Logged In: YES
    user_id=118135
    Originator: NO

    I meant to write, I think I'm inclined to just put each copyright
    statement in a .PP (which will cause a blank line to be generated before
    it)...

    [that is, minus the "empty lines after" bit]

     
    • assigned_to: nobody --> xmldoc
     
  • Logged In: YES
    user_id=118135
    Originator: NO

    Added a fix for this. Please test.

     
    • status: open --> open-fixed
     
    • status: open-fixed --> pending-fixed
     
  • Logged In: YES
    user_id=118135
    Originator: NO

    A change for this issue has been added to the current codebase.
    Please test the change with the latest snapshot from:

    http://docbook.sourceforge.net/snapshots/

     
    • status: pending-fixed --> closed-fixed
     
  • Logged In: YES
    user_id=1312539
    Originator: NO

    This Tracker item was closed automatically by the system. It was
    previously set to a Pending status, and the original submitter
    did not respond within 14 days (the time period specified by
    the administrator of this Tracker).