[Fwd: Re: Some questions to can start my work (long)]

Bruce Dubbs bdubbs at swbell.net
Sat Apr 16 16:52:08 PDT 2005

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Some questions to can start my work (long)
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 18:06:31 -0500
From: Bruce Dubbs <bdubbs at swbell.net>
To: BLFS Book Maintenance List <blfs-book at linuxfromscratch.org>
References: <200504162351.24305.manuel at linuxfromscratch.org>

M.Canales.es wrote:

> This is applicable, IMHO, to this two issues:
> .- The applications' names tagging: Taking the libIDL.xml file like an 
> example, the package name isn't tagged in the sect1 title, but is tagged as 
> <application>lib<acronym>IDL</acronym></application> in all other titles and 
> in the text blocks. My proposal is to not tag packages' names into any title 
> and to tag them only as <application> into <para>s (dropping the <acronym> 
> tag). Also, most packages are named in lowercase in the text, but are named 
> in uppercase in the Index. That don't look very consistent to me.

That has bothered me a bit too.  I've had to go back to change the index
 from my initial input to be like the other index items.  I'd like to
see other editrs' opinions, however.

> .- The command blocks are tagged as <screen><userinput><command>. Yes, that is 
> semantically very correct, but also very long and redundant. I prefer the 
> approach used in LFS that, as a plus, allow to have the same look in both 
> HTML and PDF for files creation commands (the ones with "cat ... EOF")

You are suggesting dropping the <command>.  Is that something that has
to be done for all or can we just do that as time allows?

> About the "Introduction to ..." sections: I will want to get rid of all that 
> <sect3> and <sect4> tags replacing it by <bridgehead> tags. That, together 
> with all the <sect3> tags dropped from the "Contents" sections with the new 
> Index tagging, could allow to as to add the sections numberings without a big 
> cost in rendering time.

Again, this looks like a huge task.  I do not doubt that it should be
done, but BLFS 6.0 was released with an incomplete index just because of
the time it takes to go back and do that to 360 packages.  Is there a
transition strategy we can use?

> About the role="root" attribute: I think that this was added to can have a 
> different look in that commands (maybe to add a border or to use other 
> background color). If that is the goal, the attribute must be moved to the 
> <screen> tag due that is the <screen> tag the one that creates the box area 
> containing the commands. Having it into <userinput> we can only to change by 
> default the text font attributes.


> About the "Short Descriptions" sections: I suppose that the addition of the  
> <?dbhtml list-presentation="table"?> processing instruction was accepted, only 
> delayed until have 6.0 ready, true?. Also, the descriptives texts start in 
> lowercase and end with a dot. That is just the opposite to how was done in 
> LFS for publication purposes.

Hmm.  LFS also starts with lowercase in some cases (less).  I'm not sure
what the best way is for us.  Originally, it was a sentence-like
structure.  The table type rendering does seem appropriate.

> About the use of <parameter>/<option>: I suppose that <parameter> is used only 
> in the "Command Explanations" section for parameters used in the book's 
> commands, and <option> for optional parameters and to tag any parameter into 
> the text flow, is that rigth?

Yes, that is how it is supposed to be, but I'm sure there are some
inconsistent sections.

> Lastly (for now), I want to add some new inline tags, basically <systemitem 
> class="...."> for user/group names and filesystems.

Are you gonig to render these specially?  If so how.

I think your comments are good.  What we really should do is hammer out
an agreement in the Editor's Guide and then we can use it for reference.
 The pertinent part is Chapter 6.  We also have to collectively
understand the transistion issues.

  -- Bruce

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list