fdp css negates docbook attributes

[Thomas Jones]

Tommy Reynolds wrote:

>Uttered "Paul W. Frields" <stickster at gmail.com>, spake thus:
>
>  
>
>>Anyway, this is how I understood things, but again, I pretty much just
>>scribble and wield a red pen here.  Am I way off base here, or is it
>>just that we have failed to cover guidelines on using some of this
>>DocBook markup?
>>    
>>
>
>I believe we have some implicit assumptions that need to be made
>explicit:
>
>1) No, repeat NO, style information within the XML files; leave that to
>   the CSS stylesheet.  As you say, this gives us a uniform
>   appearance for all the FDP documentation.
>
>   BTW: this is exactly my point in suggesting we have our own
>   minimal DTD that takes the tags outlines in Tammy's
>   Documentation-Guide, exactly as written there.  Keeps folks from
>   getting clever.
>
>2) We expect to render PDF output as black/white/greyscale.  Yeah, it
>   looks generic, but it is real cheap to print versus 3-256 color
>   printing.
>
>I think this is all it would take to clarify matters.
>
>Cheers
>  
>
I agree --- this is why I attempted to bring it to everyones attention. 
Although it seems as though it was already; just not in current 
discussion. If you review my example, I wanted no post-processing 
attributes; but found that they were there none the less. This lead me 
to further investigate the issues at hand because I knew I did not 
declare such. I was simply stating that there was a discrepancy.

I think it would benefit everyone to explicitly declare and mitigate 
these issues within the documentation at a minimum; if not redeclaration 
of the markup language. The brashest of comments still does not remove 
the probability of authors stumbling upon similar, if not the same, 
issues. IMHO, all chances for uncompliance should be removed within a 
dtd structure.

However, I do not fully understand what you exactly mean by a minimal 
dtd? Are you referring to a custom subset of DB? Or another entity 
altogether that I am not familiar with? ;)