#545 1.65.1 of the stylesheets renders funcprototypes wrongly

output: HTML
closed-invalid
XSL (1066)
5
2005-05-10
2004-07-30
No

The example file is:

<refentry>
<refnamediv>

<refname><function>system_starte_rakete()</function></refname>
<refpurpose>Rückstoßgetriebene
Marseroberung</refpurpose>
</refnamediv>

<refsynopsisdiv>
<funcsynopsis>
<funcprototype>
<funcdef>void
<function>system_starte_rakete</function></funcdef>
<paramdef>
<parameter>char* format</parameter>
<parameter>long int schub</parameter>
</paramdef>
</funcprototype>
</funcsynopsis>
</refsynopsisdiv>

<refsection>
<title>Eine sehr lange Überschrift</title>
<para>Hier kommt ein ganz normaler Satz.</para>
</refsection>
</refentry>

Processing this results in:

Synopsis

void system_starte_rakete(char* formatlong int schub);

char* formatchar* formatlong int schub long int schub ;

I think this is wrong. Isn't it?

Discussion

  • Robert Stayton

    Robert Stayton - 2005-03-29
    • labels: 340797 -->
     
  • Robert Stayton

    Robert Stayton - 2005-03-29

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=193218

    This isn't a website problem, so I reclassified it.

     
  • Michael(tm) Smith

    • milestone: --> 447636
    • labels: --> XSL
     
  • Michael(tm) Smith

    • assigned_to: nobody --> xmldoc
     
  • Michael(tm) Smith

    • milestone: 447636 --> output: HTML
     
  • Michael(tm) Smith

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=118135

    Oliver,

    The parameters in the function prototype in your
    example file are not marked up correctly. Paramdef is
    actually intended to have only one parameter per
    paramdef. So you should mark it up instead like this:

    <funcprototype>
    <funcdef>void
    <function>system_starte_rakete</function></funcdef>
    <paramdef>char* <parameter>format</parameter></paramdef>
    <paramdef>long int <parameter>schub</parameter></paramdef>
    </funcprototype>

    See the examples in TDG:

    http://docbook.org/tdg/en/html/funcsynopsis.html

    If you use markup like the above, I think you will get
    the output you expect.

    The only case where you wouldn't would be if you did
    actually need to have two parameters in one paramdef.
    That is valid DocBook, but I can't think of a
    legitimate case where anybody would want to do it.

    If you do actually need to have support for having two
    parameters in one paramdef, please open up a new bug
    report with an example file showing a use case.

    --Mike

     
  • Michael(tm) Smith

    • status: open --> closed-invalid
     

Get latest updates about Open Source Projects, Conferences and News.

Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:





No, thanks