Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [XSL-FO] Automation about line number

Expand Messages
  • J.Pietschmann
    ... argument. Really? 7.15.9 text-align Value: start | center | end | justify | inside | outside | left | right ... The in the angle brackets is
    Message 1 of 6 , Jun 11, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      G. Ken Holman wrote:

      > I looked where you cited and I see no examples of the use of a string
      argument.


      Really?
      7.15.9 "text-align"
      Value: start | center | end | justify | inside | outside | left | right
      | <string> | inherit
      The <string> in the angle brackets is really meant to be an XSLFO
      property expression string, I think, while all the other values are
      enumeration tokens.
      Well, they *could* have been a bit more clear.

      > I checked the CSS citation and saw in the syntax of the CSS
      stylesheet the use of quotes, but I thought that was an artifact of the
      CSS stylesheet syntax.
      >
      > Looking at XSL-FO section 5.11 I note the description of <string> to be:
      >
      > "A sequence of characters"
      >
      > ... which does not imply the need for quotes ... though I will admit
      that if the alignment string were the word "left" you would need to say
      "'left'" in order to distinguish from "left".


      Section 5.9.8 Strings (lexical structure of property expressions):
      "Strings are represented either as literals or as an enumeration token."
      The string literal is cross referenced to the production:
      [20] Literal ::= '"' [^"]* '"' | "'" [^']* "'"
      (see slice5.html#NT-Literal). These quotes are supposed to be inside
      the XML attribute, like for XSLT strings.
      But then, there is the following in 5.9.8:
      "All properties contexts allow conversion from enumeration tokens to
      strings"
      which means the XML attribute
      foo="bar"
      would represent a valid FO property expression, yielding the
      enumeration token bar which may be implicitly converted to the string
      "bar".
      OTOH, an enumeration token is supposed to be a NCName, and a single
      dot is not a NCName (but a single underline character is). Hence
      the need for the quotes. Or so I believe.

      I remember the discussion regarding page number formats:
      <fo:page-sequence format="01" ...
      The expression will be parsed as number, but because the format is
      expected to be a string and in contrast to XPath XSLFO numbers
      can't be implicitely converted into a string, the property is in
      error (and even if implicit conversion was allowed, it would drop
      the leading zero). The errata allow the FO processor specifically
      for this use case to fall back to use the original string value
      of the XML atribute, after trimming leading and trailing whitespace,
      otherwise everybody would be forced to write
      <fo:page-sequence format="'01'" ...
      Duh!

      And I really like the specification of the hyphenation character:
      7.9.5 "hyphenation-character"
      Value: <character> | inherit
      Yeah, chapter 5 doesn't include a specification for a lexical character,
      nor do the errata. This begs the question whether
      <fo:block hyphenation-character="-">
      is really meant to be written this way, because the only plausible
      interpretation of <character> would be "a string consisting of
      a single character". And what about
      <fo:block hyphenation-character="....">
      Yes, four ASCII dots. Why shouldn't this be allowed?

      I'm reminded of the most renowned example of "specification by
      implementation", the C preprocessor - simple, intuitive syntax,
      straightforward implementation, but leading to an utterly convoluted
      formal description for the sake of getting rid of the "dark corners"
      (which makes the quite innocently looking expression 0xE-0xA an invalid
      PP token).

      Specs with holes suck. But then, I've dealt with texts which were much,
      much worse.
      I hope they fix the property expression grammar and the individual
      property specs in XSLFO 2.0

      Regards
      J.Pietschmann
    • Glen Mazza
      Yes, for Docbook: http://www.sagehill.net/docbookxsl/AnnotateListing.html#LineNumbering ... http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/9rHolB/TM
      Message 2 of 6 , Jun 11, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Yes, for Docbook:

        http://www.sagehill.net/docbookxsl/AnnotateListing.html#LineNumbering


        --- "J.Pietschmann" <j3322ptm@...> wrote:
        > G. Ken Holman wrote:
        > > Unless a vendor gives you a vendor extension to do
        > line numbering of
        > > formatted lines, I think you are out of luck.
        >
        > The DocBook XSLT style sheets provide such an
        > extension
        > for Saxon and Xalan, I think.
        >
        > J.Pietschmann
        >
        >
        > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        > --------------------~-->
        > Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
        >
        http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/9rHolB/TM
        >
        --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        > XSL-FO-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Bob Stayton
        Clarification: The DocBook line numbering applies only to programlisting and literallayout elements, not to general text. There is no facility in DocBook
        Message 3 of 6 , Jun 11, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Clarification: The DocBook line numbering applies only to programlisting and
          literallayout elements, not to general text. There is no facility in
          DocBook stylesheets to number all lines of a document, which is what the
          original question was after.

          Bob Stayton
          Sagehill Enterprises
          DocBook Consulting
          bobs@...


          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Glen Mazza" <grm7793@...>
          To: <XSL-FO@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 11:30 AM
          Subject: Re: [XSL-FO] Automation about line number


          > Yes, for Docbook:
          >
          > http://www.sagehill.net/docbookxsl/AnnotateListing.html#LineNumbering
          >
          >
          > --- "J.Pietschmann" <j3322ptm@...> wrote:
          > > G. Ken Holman wrote:
          > > > Unless a vendor gives you a vendor extension to do
          > > line numbering of
          > > > formatted lines, I think you are out of luck.
          > >
          > > The DocBook XSLT style sheets provide such an
          > > extension
          > > for Saxon and Xalan, I think.
          > >
          > > J.Pietschmann
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.