From: David P. <pr...@sf...> - 2005-08-26 20:47:33
|
For the longest time, docutils has *incorrectly* placed target references to sections *before* the prior section's closing tag. Not only is that a really weird thing to do, it makes it quite difficult to have XSL:FO correctly target the section title. Could this please be fixed ASAP? I just spent the day fixing XSL:FO broken by the classes/names/ids/etc changes, and this is the one real niggler left over. Thanks! -- David Priest pr...@sf... ICQ: 248533102 MSN: omg...@ho... |
From: Felix W. <Fel...@gm...> - 2005-08-26 21:32:44
|
David Priest wrote: > For the longest time, docutils has *incorrectly* placed target > references to sections *before* the prior section's closing tag. Not > only is that a really weird thing to do, it makes it quite difficult > to have XSL:FO correctly target the section title. There is no reasonable place to move the target to, unfortunately. However, current versions of Docutils assign the target ID to the targeted section: $ rst2pseudoxml.py --no-doc-title .. _mytarget: Section ======= <document source="<stdin>"> <target refid="mytarget"> <section ids="section mytarget" names="section mytarget"> <title> Section Note the 'ids' attribute in the section node. I recommend that you use the 'ids' attribute and ignore the target node. -- For private mail please ensure that the header contains 'Felix Wiemann'. "the number of contributors [...] is strongly and inversely correlated with the number of hoops each project makes a contributing user go through." -- ESR |
From: Felix W. <Fel...@gm...> - 2005-09-02 16:50:27
|
David Goodger wrote: > Felix Wiemann wrote: > >>> As a side note, that limitation turns out to be annoying in XHTML >>> -- as soon as you want an element to be referenceable with multiple >>> names ("#foo", "#bar"), you have to do ugly things like inserting >>> empty <span> tags. > > These should be empty <a> tags, since that's what they're for. But > IIRC NN4 doesn't like empty <a> tags, which is why we're using > <span>s; it's a kludge. No; it's because XHTML doesn't allow nested <a> tags. And since you can have a target inside a reference (it mostly occurs in TOC-backrefs in section titles), we use <span> for that. -- For private mail please ensure that the header contains 'Felix Wiemann'. "the number of contributors [...] is strongly and inversely correlated with the number of hoops each project makes a contributing user go through." -- ESR |
From: Felix W. <Fel...@gm...> - 2005-09-03 23:50:53
|
David Goodger wrote: > Felix Wiemann wrote: > >> So, asking again, is anything to be said against removing the targets? > > I don't recall if there's any reason to keep them. Try removing > them, and see what happens. Unfortunately, if I remove them, we have "dead" (removed) nodes referenced from some internal list attribute of the document node. Please see my posting "Substitution bugs and node lists in document node". I'll revisit this topic (removing targets) when the other issue is resolved. BTW, /me has a day job since Thursday, doing software development. It's really cool. :-) -- For private mail please ensure that the header contains 'Felix Wiemann'. "the number of contributors [...] is strongly and inversely correlated with the number of hoops each project makes a contributing user go through." -- ESR |
From: Felix W. <Fel...@gm...> - 2005-08-27 00:12:08
|
David Priest wrote: > Then they [targets] must have been a poor idea implemented poorly, > because locating the target within a section arbitrarily deep that > actually references the next top-level section is quite silly. Admittedly, yes. > Maybe target tags should be eliminated altogether. You cannot do entirely without targets because _`this is a target`, too. However, I wouldn't object to removing useless targets (whose ids have been moved to another node). Or is there a reason to keep the targets? -- Felix Wiemann -- http://www.ososo.de/ |
From: David G. <go...@py...> - 2005-08-28 21:54:43
Attachments:
signature.asc
|
[Felix Wiemann] > So, asking again, is anything to be said against removing the targets? I don't recall if there's any reason to keep them. Try removing them, and see what happens. -- David Goodger <http://python.net/~goodger> |