[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: {RFC] XSLT for draft watermarking?



Uttered "Paul W. Frields" <stickster gmail com>, spake thus:

> Both <book> and <article> in DocBook support a CDATA attribute called
> "status".  (I.e., <book status="published"> or something like that.)
> Does this mean we could have XSLT do the work of deciding which
> stylesheet to use, without having to have a new "make" target?  

Maybe I know this, but I can't remember it at the moment.  I need a
little more thinking on this.  My question is:

	When is an FDP document "published"?

It seems to me that being considered as a published document is
solely determinable from the context in which the document appears.
I'm not considering "publication" as it relates to copyright, just
making the distinction between DRAFT and PRODUCTION versions of a
doc.

For example, you write a manuscript and send it to a publisher.  They
love the first draft and fire up the presses.  Now, the copy you sent
them is clearly DRAFT and their bound version is clearly PRODUCTION,
even though the words in each are exactly the same: it's the context
or pedigree that matters.

Documents built locally from CVS can never be "production" because
they are not official copies.  To emphasis this, we now have a
watermark indicating its draft status.

Documents obtained from DocsRawHide can never be "production" and
need to be watermarked as draft.

Official, production-quality documents are located (where?) and
produced by (whom?).  Only those copies need have the draft
watermarking revoked.

Docs included in the distribution are "production".  Where else do
the official docs reside?  Who places them there?  How do they know
when to do this?

I don't think the document itself should know whether it is released
or not.  It is too easy to leave the blessing in the document as
modifications are in progress.  An external mechanism makes sense to
me.

We really need only one CSS stylesheet in the docs CVS: the
fedora-draft.css file, and we have that.

Any official-looking document renderings should come from whom ever
is constructing the official-looking release, but anything in our CVS
is strictly for draft documents.

Does this mean that document authors can't generate official document
renderings?  Yes, if by that you mean "Fedora Documentation Project"
official copies.  Anyone wanting to produce their own published
renderings are free to take the "fedora-draft.css" stylesheet and
edit as desired.

I would agree to change the XSLT and Makefile.common stuff to
reference "fedora.css" and to make "fedora.css" a symlink to the
"fedora-draft.css" file.  That would make switching the CSS
stylesheet easier because a change would not corrupt the local CVS
image.

Comments? Suggestions? Donations?

Attachment: pgpllD7br7SXW.pgp
Description: PGP signature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]