Re: Fw: DOCBOOK: programlisting

[ed nixon <ed dot nixon at lynnparkplace dot org>]

Sorry, John. Do you really describe that page as a "thorough" test?

- What CSS use cases is it attempting to test?
- Is this example in itself combinatorially complete among the set of
classes and values?
- Does the example test conflicting values? duplicate values? cascade 
effects? compound/multiple values?

To be honest, at this point in the thread, it's not even clear to me 
what the requirements are that this functionality is intended to address.

You can say, "Well, develop something yourself."
And I say, "That would be fine if I had the time."

My concern is in rushing off to make a seeminly ad hoc change in a less 
than water-tight development process that will scupper a bunch of people 
through side effects or exogenous, unmanageable factors (like browser 
capabilities.) It is all so application and location specific.

I'd almost be tempted to say that, beyond some basic level of support, 
CSS functionality in the DocBook style sheets should be a matter for 
customization. And that evolution of the stylesheets in so far as 
changes deal with CSS, should be in aid of customization and not to 
directly add CSS functionality. Or am I missing a point that has already 
been made or is simply understood.

Sorry for the rain on the parade; but it seems to need saying even if 
it's not the idea that goes forward.

Regards.                ...edN

John R. Daily wrote:
> At (time_t)1029500659 ed nixon wrote:
>
>
> > Before this is made a permanent feature, I'd like to suggest it be 
> > checked thoroughly against the "modern" browsers at least, i.e. 6 and 
> > above. (Sorry, but I've seen IE 5.x described as the "Netscape 4 of the 
> > modern browser world.")
>
> Hence my earlier call for review of http://www.geekhavoc.com/css.html
>
> So far, we have positive results from IE 5.0 and 6.0.
>
> --
> John R. Daily
> <email><mailbox>john</mailbox><domain>geekhavoc.com</domain></email>