This is the mail archive of the
docbook-apps@lists.oasis-open.org
mailing list .
Re: abstract red in FO?
- To: docbook <docbook-apps at lists dot oasis-open dot org>
- Subject: Re: DOCBOOK-APPS: abstract red in FO?
- From: Eric Richardson <eric at milagrosoft dot com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 16:38:15 -0700
- Cc: Norman Walsh <ndw at nwalsh dot com>
- Organization: MilagroSoft Inc.
- References: <3A88688F.5367A3F8@milagrosoft.com> <87g0hfedy7.fsf@nwalsh.com>
Norman Walsh wrote:
>
> / Eric Richardson <eric@milagrosoft.com> was heard to say:
> | The abstract section shows up in red in the PDF from FO. I remember from
> | reading this group that the red means something special when the output
> | of the process. The XHTML processes this nicely.
>
> Red means I screwed up. (Literally, it means that no template matched the
> element and so the default template got fired. That's not supposed to
> happen.)
>
> I'll take a look.
Thanks alot. I'm pretty new to this so it's a little overwelming. I
found the default red template today. If I'm not miss reading the DTD,
an abstract can be inside articleinfo or just at the top level of the
article.
Eric :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to: docbook-apps-request@lists.oasis-open.org