Re: Problem in the man xml files.

2005/9/19, Tomasz Kłoczko <[email protected]>:
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2005, Yuri Kozlov wrote:
> 
> > 2005/9/17, Tomasz Kłoczko <[email protected]>:
> >> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005, Yuri Kozlov wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Contens of the <listitem> must be in a <para> tags:
> >>> <listitem><para>group account information</para></listitem>
> >>>
> >>> I can not found whats a docbook standard said, but its worked.
> >>
> >> I know about this. Also I know this workaroud.
> >>
> >> This is bug in XML DTD files content or in XSLT sheets. If current shadow
> >> XML are files incorrect and must have this additional <para></para> it
> >> must be reported by XML parser (basing on DTD). If XML DTD is correct
> >> something must be fixed in XSLT sheets first.
> >> I'm still not adding this <para></para> because it will be plain hiding
> >> some real bug on XML DTD or XSLT sheets side (or even XML parser).
> >> I'm waiting for some neccessary solution on XML/XSLT level.
> >>
> >> Anyway using docbook-xsl-1.69.0 generates correct roff files (in sense man
> >> roff syntax). Yes .. worse look&feel but correct syntax :)
> >>
> > Ok, how about section Examples of this:
> > http://www.docbook.org/tdg/en/html/para.html
> >
> > <itemizedlist>
> > <listitem><para>It was slow</para></listitem>
> > <listitem><para>It ran hot</para></listitem>
> > <listitem><para>It didn't actually work</para></listitem>
> > </itemizedlist>
> > Of these three, the last was probably the most important.
> > </para>
> >
> > Why they are using a <para> tag?
> 
> I want say only: both forms passes XML linting without errors (using for
> example xmllint command from libxml 2.x). In sense XSLT sheets form
> without <para></para> inside <listitem> produces inccorrect output.
> Conclution: must be fixed XML DTD or XSLT sheets.
> 
Or xmllint is give us wrong result.

> Using <listitem> defines some elements separation and in most cases when
> list item contain only single paragraph using <para></para> is redundand
> (using multiple <para></para> inside <listitem> have some usable sense).
Argeed.

> So .. IMO probably broken is XSLT (but I'm not XML/XSLT expert :).
> 
Try to checkout the xml by conglomerate editor. (exists in Debian stable):
"
Element listitem content does not follow the DTD, expecting
(calloutlist | glosslist | itemizedlist | orderedlist | segmentedlist
| simplelist | variablelist | caution | important | note | tip |
warning | literallayout | programlisting | programlistingco | screen |
screenco | screenshot | synopsis | cmdsynopsis | funcsynopsis |
classsynopsis | fieldsynopsis | constructorsynopsis |
destructorsynopsis | methodsynopsis | formalpara | para | simpara |
address | blockquote | graphic | graphicco | mediaobject |
mediaobjectco | informalequation | informalexample | informalfigure |
informaltable | equation | example | figure | table | msgset |
procedure | sidebar | qandaset | task | anchor | bridgehead | remark |
highlights | abstract | authorblurb | epigraph | indexterm |
beginpage)+, got (CDATA)
"

-- 
Regards,
Yuri Kozlov