Subject: Re: bug in jade?? From: Norman Walsh <norm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 10:03:40 -0400 |
Paul Prescod <papresco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > with modular docbook.dsl by Norman Walsh style-sheet > > I'm going to be that this is the problem. Construction rules in one part > of a style-specification are more specific than any construction rule in > a subsequent part except when a mode is in use. That means that a > > (default ....) > > rule overrides every rule in a following style-specification rule (for > example). I could see how this would be non-intuitive in situations and > perhaps DSSSL should give you more control. You can use general text entities > instead of independent DSSSL style sheet documents to concatenate rules > without changing their relative specifity. Ouch. Maybe I should modularize only by PE, then. Taranov, I'll give your example more thought tomorrow. [ Note, I'm just about to announce 0.82, which I finished earlier this morning, so that won't address this problem. ] --norm DSSSList info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: bug in jade??, Taranov Alexander | Thread | Re: bug in jade??, Norman Walsh |
Re: bug in jade??, Paul Prescod | Date | Modular DocBook stylesheet 0.82, Norman Walsh |
Month |