On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:56:34AM +0000, Matt G. wrote:
> However, to do this cleanly, you'd have to define an out-of-band layout
> format, which could supply formatting information for at least the images
> (individually, or perhaps in groups) in a given document.
I'm not (yet) convinced we *need* that, but as Bob pointed out, PI's
could be used - no need to put out-of-band data in a separate file.
> Furthermore, the tools situation is currently in flux (WRT XSL-FO being
> still a ways from maturity), and is causing users plenty of trouble.
> Therefore, I say we should cleanup the semantics and patch the holes of
> imagedata, and maybe consider moving this information out of the core
> docbook vocabulary, a ways down the road.
I'd simply see that as a goal for 6.0 :)
> I'll go over Norm's examples, as I planned.
Hm, I feel using english descriptions (such as "with aspect ration as
defined from width and depth", or such) would somewhat clarify your
expectations. But maybe that's just me :)
Regards,
--
Yann Dirson <> http://www.alcove.com/
Free-Software Engineer Ing幯ieur Logiciel-Libre
Free-Software time manager Responsable du temps Informatique-Libre
Debian GNU/Linux developper <>
