fdp css negates docbook attributes

[Tommy Reynolds]

Uttered "Paul W. Frields" <stickster at gmail.com>, spake thus:

> Anyway, this is how I understood things, but again, I pretty much just
> scribble and wield a red pen here.  Am I way off base here, or is it
> just that we have failed to cover guidelines on using some of this
> DocBook markup?

I believe we have some implicit assumptions that need to be made
explicit:

1) No, repeat NO, style information within the XML files; leave that to
   the CSS stylesheet.  As you say, this gives us a uniform
   appearance for all the FDP documentation.

   BTW: this is exactly my point in suggesting we have our own
   minimal DTD that takes the tags outlines in Tammy's
   Documentation-Guide, exactly as written there.  Keeps folks from
   getting clever.

2) We expect to render PDF output as black/white/greyscale.  Yeah, it
   looks generic, but it is real cheap to print versus 3-256 color
   printing.

I think this is all it would take to clarify matters.

Cheers
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/attachments/20050518/debf29ea/attachment.sig>