From: David P. <pr...@sf...> - 2003-07-29 15:38:21
|
On 29 Jul 2003 at 1:20, David Goodger wrote: > David Priest wrote: > > It's been a while since I posted, > > Welcome back! Did you know about > <http://docutils.sourceforge.net/tmp/charents/>? Yes, and I'm actively using it. It's great! > Another of your > ideas, about character processing with regexps, has also been > discussed recently ("automatic typography" thread on docutils-users) > and is partially summarized at > <http://docutils.sf.net/spec/rst/alternatives.html#character-processin > g>. Sweet. I'd like to have automatic typography, and there's one word that's used frequently which needs special formatting. I tried using a substitution, but it didn't seem to work. (The word is "Matrix3", and the "3" needs to be superscripted. Actually, it needs to be typeset a little differently that superscript, but I'm willing to do the superscript-mangling in the XML:FO part of the workflow.) > > I would like to share the XML:FO transformation sheets with > DocUtils > users. I believe I shall generally do this by writing a > web > tutorial, so that users can customize the sheets as needed for > their > own particular application. I'll do this when I get a > chance, > probably starting in September. > > You're welcome (and encouraged!) to put files in a sandbox directory > before then, in case they'd be of use to anyone. Send me your > SourceForge user ID and I'll add you as a developer. Will do come September. I'm heading hols this week. > > - there is no support for UI element tagging. No :mouse:, :key:, > or > :gui: tags. This is a shame, because a lot of DocUtil authors > are, > I believe, documenting software, which generally means they're > > documenting user interfaces. > > What might be the best solution is outlined in the proposal at > <http://docutils.sf.net/spec/notes.html#role-bindings>. We've > discussed these before, most recently on the Doc-SIG list in June. > There hasn't been any implementation progress since. 'k. > > - targets are sometimes mis-located. In particular, placing a > > target before a section header puts the target at the end of the > > previous section instead of the start of the next section. > > Programatically this makes sense; aesthetically, it does not: one > > usually places a target reference immediately before the thing being > > targeted. This probably merits some amount of discussion. > > This could and should be fixed. There's already code that does a > similar job of repositioning, for the "class" directive. I added this > to the bugs list (higher priority than to-do). I dealt with this using some major juju in the XML:FO transformation. It isn't thoroughly tested, and is specific to only section titles. Thanks for the info et al, (another) david |