From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2007-06-26 17:22:08
|
Feature Requests item #1690539, was opened at 2007-03-29 20:20 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by xmldoc You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=373750&aid=1690539&group_id=21935 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: XSL Group: output: manpages Status: Open >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Daniel Leidert (dleidert) Assigned to: Michael(tm) Smith (xmldoc) Summary: man: different copyright/legalnotice for product and manpage Initial Comment: 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Michael(tm) Smith (xmldoc) Date: 2007-06-27 02:22 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=118135 Originator: NO Added a fix for this. Please test. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Michael(tm) Smith (xmldoc) Date: 2007-03-30 01:17 Message: 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] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Michael(tm) Smith (xmldoc) Date: 2007-03-30 01:14 Message: 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Daniel Leidert (dleidert) Date: 2007-03-29 21:39 Message: 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? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Michael(tm) Smith (xmldoc) Date: 2007-03-29 21:33 Message: 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=373750&aid=1690539&group_id=21935 |