From martin.gautier at myrnham.co.uk Mon Nov 1 00:22:16 2004 From: martin.gautier at myrnham.co.uk (martin.gautier@myrnham.co.uk) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 00:22:16 +0000 Subject: [docbook-css] List Counting for Procedure Message-ID: I've added procedure to get the list counting to work properly... Mozilla.css ---orderedlist, itemizedlist { +++orderedlist, itemizedlist, procedure { /* this seems to be required to make auto-numbering work */ -moz-counter-reset: -html-counter 0; } From dave at badgers-in-foil.co.uk Mon Nov 1 01:26:43 2004 From: dave at badgers-in-foil.co.uk (David Holroyd) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 01:26:43 +0000 Subject: [docbook-css] [ANN] Firefox DocBook 'Outliner' Extension In-Reply-To: <20041019185753.GA20944@vhost.badgers-in-foil.co.uk> References: <20041019185753.GA20944@vhost.badgers-in-foil.co.uk> Message-ID: <20041101012642.GB2905@vhost.badgers-in-foil.co.uk> On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 06:57:54PM +0000, David Holroyd wrote: > On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 09:14:48PM +0100, martin.gautier@myrnham.co.uk wrote: > > I noticed the website mentions that CSS can't do TOCs. Having a TOC has > > been an issue for me and I've done some work on it recently. I can get a > > pop-up TOC to appear in Mozilla quite nicely. Unfortunately, at this > > stage, it interferes with the main text (ie. it pops up down the left hand > > side of the page) and needs code in the XML doc which works for the > > browser but makes the XML invalid. I have some ideas on fixing this and > > I'll get back to the list when I start looking at the problem again... > > I recall seeing an 'Outline' mozilla extension for HTML pages (I assume > that this wouldn't require changes to the document to make it work). > > Maybe I'll have a poke at that, to see how it does its magic. I hacked on this a bit today, and here's what I came up with: http://www.badgers-in-foil.co.uk/projects/docbook-css/outliner/ It works as a simple navigation aid, but lacks polish at the moment. In particular, the code has a whilelist of 'sectioning' elements allowed to appear in the TOC; this list is incomplete, so let me know if stuff you think should appear isn't actually turning up. dave From martin.gautier at myrnham.co.uk Mon Nov 1 10:30:36 2004 From: martin.gautier at myrnham.co.uk (martin.gautier@myrnham.co.uk) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 10:30:36 +0000 Subject: [docbook-css] [ANN] Firefox DocBook 'Outliner' Extension In-Reply-To: <20041101012642.GB2905@vhost.badgers-in-foil.co.uk> Message-ID: Dave Will this only install onto Firefox? Mozilla (1.7.3) seems to know what an XPI file is but complains of "No Install Script" so won't install :o( Is there a menu option or button to switch the TOC off/on (when it's installed & working)? Mart On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 06:57:54PM +0000, David Holroyd wrote: > On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 09:14:48PM +0100, martin.gautier@myrnham.co.uk wrote: > > I noticed the website mentions that CSS can't do TOCs. Having a TOC has > > been an issue for me and I've done some work on it recently. I can get a > > pop-up TOC to appear in Mozilla quite nicely. Unfortunately, at this > > stage, it interferes with the main text (ie. it pops up down the left hand > > side of the page) and needs code in the XML doc which works for the > > browser but makes the XML invalid. I have some ideas on fixing this and > > I'll get back to the list when I start looking at the problem again... > > I recall seeing an 'Outline' mozilla extension for HTML pages (I assume > that this wouldn't require changes to the document to make it work). > > Maybe I'll have a poke at that, to see how it does its magic. I hacked on this a bit today, and here's what I came up with: http://www.badgers-in-foil.co.uk/projects/docbook-css/outliner/ It works as a simple navigation aid, but lacks polish at the moment. In particular, the code has a whilelist of 'sectioning' elements allowed to appear in the TOC; this list is incomplete, so let me know if stuff you think should appear isn't actually turning up. dave _______________________________________________ docbook-css mailing list docbook-css@lists.badgers-in-foil.co.uk http://lists.badgers-in-foil.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/docbook-css From dave at badgers-in-foil.co.uk Mon Nov 1 13:39:06 2004 From: dave at badgers-in-foil.co.uk (David Holroyd) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 13:39:06 +0000 Subject: [docbook-css] [ANN] Firefox DocBook 'Outliner' Extension In-Reply-To: References: <20041101012642.GB2905@vhost.badgers-in-foil.co.uk> Message-ID: <20041101133905.GA10760@vhost.badgers-in-foil.co.uk> On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 10:30:36AM +0000, martin.gautier@myrnham.co.uk wrote: > Will this only install onto Firefox? > > Mozilla (1.7.3) seems to know what an XPI file is but complains of "No > Install Script" so won't install :o( I think there were recently changes to the way XPI's work, which I only Firefox/Thunderbird currently use -- it's all driven by a declarative list of resources to be installed, rather than an imperative install script. It may be that by adding an install.js, the XPI can be made to work with both Moz-proper and Firefox, but I'm just a clueless newb who copied someone else's code, so I can say for sure ;) For the moment, install Firefox if you want to give this a go. > Is there a menu option or button to switch the TOC off/on (when it's > installed & working)? Yeah, (as inherited from the original, HTML version) there's an additional menu item, View->Sidebar->Document Outline, and a shortcut (alt-o). dave From dave at badgers-in-foil.co.uk Fri Nov 19 11:46:51 2004 From: dave at badgers-in-foil.co.uk (David Holroyd) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:46:51 +0000 Subject: [docbook-css] Licence Clarification Message-ID: <20041119114650.GC11009@vhost.badgers-in-foil.co.uk> Martin, It's been pointed out to me that it isn't clean what terms the stlesheets are made available under. Currently, one of the files ('styles.css') contains the line, This file placed in the public domain -- David Holroyd 2002 The intention was that this apply to the set of files as a whole. I would like to change the terms under which the stylesheet is licenced, in order to do two things: 1. Retain copyright for myself, and contributors 2. Disclaim all warranties I'm not too bothered about 1. personally, but it makes in clear to people contributing code what rights they get (I think?). Disclaiming warranties just seems the fashionable thing to do. This is the proposed licence, based on the 'Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer' template[1] from opensource.org: ---- Copyright (c) 2004 David Holroyd, and contributors. Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies, and that both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation. The contributors make no representations about the suitability of this software for any purpose. It is provided "as is" without express or implied warranty. THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE, INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. ---- [1] http://opensource.org/licenses/historical.php Could you please let me know if you are happy for your contributions to be made available under these terms? ta, dave -- http://david.holroyd.me.uk/ From martin.gautier at myrnham.co.uk Fri Nov 19 13:28:03 2004 From: martin.gautier at myrnham.co.uk (martin.gautier@myrnham.co.uk) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 13:28:03 +0000 Subject: [docbook-css] Licence Clarification In-Reply-To: <20041119114650.GC11009@vhost.badgers-in-foil.co.uk> Message-ID:
David

In principle I'm happy with both.

Is it possible to ensure that the whole product remains in the Public Domain and the license can't be revoked at a later stage/version?

I was recently close to a situation where a friend had contributed content and fixes to an open source solution over a period of years only to find that one day, the "owner" had pulled the code "in-house" and started charging for the product - ie. this guy had contributed code for free to a product that he now had to buy to use...

The DocBook DTD has this license text:

     Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute the DocBook XML DTD
     and its accompanying documentation for any purpose and without fee
     is hereby granted in perpetuity, provided that the above copyright
     notice and this paragraph appear in all copies.  The copyright
     holders make no representation about the suitability of the DTD for
     any purpose.  It is provided "as is" without expressed or implied
     warranty.

     If you modify the DocBook XML DTD in any way, except for declaring and
     referencing additional sets of general entities and declaring
     additional notations, label your DTD as a variant of DocBook.  See
     the maintenance documentation for more information.

I guess the key bit is "...granted in perpetuity..."?

Mart From martin.gautier at myrnham.co.uk Fri Nov 19 13:49:24 2004 From: martin.gautier at myrnham.co.uk (martin.gautier@myrnham.co.uk) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 13:49:24 +0000 Subject: [docbook-css] Inline Images: Changes to styles.css Message-ID:
It seems that the following DocBook:

<para>The word "press" means to press the specified <inlinemediaobject>
  <imageobject role = "html">
    <imagedata format = "PNG" fileref = "4230-2_en_US\btn_key.png"/>
  </imageobject>
</inlinemediaobject>.</para>

...produces the following text:

The word "press" means to press the specified
[the_image]
.

... where "[the_image]" is the actual PNG image itself. ie. the image is dumped onto a new line as does any following text.

Changes to styles.css

/*imageobject {
        display: block;
} */

removing the display block seems to do the trick. I've not come across a "gotcha" yet, I'll let you know if I do...

Mart From dave at badgers-in-foil.co.uk Fri Nov 19 14:50:46 2004 From: dave at badgers-in-foil.co.uk (David Holroyd) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:50:46 +0000 Subject: [docbook-css] Licence Clarification In-Reply-To: References: <20041119114650.GC11009@vhost.badgers-in-foil.co.uk> Message-ID: <20041119145046.GA14520@vhost.badgers-in-foil.co.uk> Here is my opinion -- I am not a laywer... On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 01:28:03PM +0000, martin.gautier@myrnham.co.uk wrote: > Is it possible to ensure that the whole product remains in the Public > Domain and the license can't be revoked at a later stage/version? I believe dedicating your work to the Public Domain means that you revoke all copyright claims, so you have absolutely no say in what people later do with it. > I was recently close to a situation where a friend had contributed content > and fixes to an open source solution over a period of years only to find > that one day, the "owner" had pulled the code "in-house" and started > charging for the product - ie. this guy had contributed code for free to a > product that he now had to buy to use... The license doesn't say anything about termination, so I think that people would always be able to use existing releases even if some future version would be licenced differently. [Note: I explicitly intend to allow the stlesheets used by comercial applications, like XML editiors.] Now; since the licence says "Copyright (c) 2004 David Holroyd, and contributors", you, as a contributor, retain rights over your work and would have to aprove any future change in licence (contrary to the current situation; if you've dedicated your work to the public domain, I can legaly publish it under a licence that gives you no rights unless you pay me). ...or, I could be completely wrong. Remember that it *is* derived from a licence that is approved to have the badge 'Open Source' by people who doubtless understand these things better. dave -- http://david.holroyd.me.uk/ From martin.gautier at myrnham.co.uk Fri Nov 19 17:32:07 2004 From: martin.gautier at myrnham.co.uk (martin.gautier@myrnham.co.uk) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:32:07 +0000 Subject: [docbook-css] Licence Clarification In-Reply-To: <20041119145046.GA14520@vhost.badgers-in-foil.co.uk> Message-ID: >>I believe dedicating your work to the Public Domain means that you revoke >>all copyright claims, so you have absolutely no say in what people later >>do with it. I'd imagine that would be true if it was declared Public Domain and no copyright notice was attached. By copyrighting the material, you get the right to say how you want it to be used. ie. Free, copyable and changeable as long as the copyrigt notice is intact. I guess I don't have a real beef about how license text is worded as long as: "Copyright (c) 2004 David Holroyd, and contributors" is prominent. If there's a small number of major contributors, you might want to name them? It's clear that the software is free and public and can be copied, changed and reused. There's a statement removing liability and fitness for use. I thought maybe the "...in perpetuity" might help? There's a number of OSS license templates around. I guess we can just choose one, attach it and place a neat tick next to the relevent items in our To-Do lists ;o) Mart From dave at badgers-in-foil.co.uk Fri Nov 19 17:54:32 2004 From: dave at badgers-in-foil.co.uk (David Holroyd) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:54:32 +0000 Subject: [docbook-css] Licence Clarification In-Reply-To: References: <20041119145046.GA14520@vhost.badgers-in-foil.co.uk> Message-ID: <20041119175432.GA16504@vhost.badgers-in-foil.co.uk> On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 05:32:07PM +0000, martin.gautier@myrnham.co.uk wrote: > >>I believe dedicating your work to the Public Domain means that you > revoke > >>all copyright claims, so you have absolutely no say in what people later > >>do with it. > > I'd imagine that would be true if it was declared Public Domain and no > copyright notice was attached. By copyrighting the material, you get the > right to say how you want it to be used. ie. Free, copyable and changeable > as long as the copyrigt notice is intact. 'Public domain' specifically refers to things for which copyright has been revoked, or has expired (i.e. some number of years after the author's death, their copyright expires, and their work enters the public domain, if it wasn't there already). > I guess I don't have a real beef about how license text is worded as long > as: > > "Copyright (c) 2004 David Holroyd, and contributors" is prominent. > If there's a small number of major contributors, you might want to name > them? > It's clear that the software is free and public and can be copied, changed > and reused. > There's a statement removing liability and fitness for use. > > I thought maybe the "...in perpetuity" might help? I added the phrase. COPYING now reads: ---- Copyright (c) 2004 David Holroyd, and contributors. Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this software and its |documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, in |perpetuity, provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies, and that both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation. The contributors make no representations about the suitability of this software for any purpose. It is provided "as is" without express or implied warranty. THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE, INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. ---- Is it ok for me to publish a new version including this licence? (thanks for wading though all this, by the way!) dave -- http://david.holroyd.me.uk/ From martin.gautier at myrnham.co.uk Sat Nov 20 00:08:24 2004 From: martin.gautier at myrnham.co.uk (martin.gautier@myrnham.co.uk) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 00:08:24 +0000 Subject: [docbook-css] Licence Clarification In-Reply-To: <20041119175432.GA16504@vhost.badgers-in-foil.co.uk> Message-ID: >>'Public domain' specifically refers to things for which copyright has been revoked, or has expired (i.e. some number of years after the author's death, their copyright expires, and their work enters the public domain, if it wasn't there already). That makes sense. >> Is it ok for me to publish a new version including this licence? Sure. At the top of each file right? Mart From dave at badgers-in-foil.co.uk Mon Nov 22 10:24:29 2004 From: dave at badgers-in-foil.co.uk (David Holroyd) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:24:29 +0000 Subject: [docbook-css] [ANN] DocBook CSS 0.4 Released Message-ID: <20041122102428.GA27584@vhost.badgers-in-foil.co.uk> Version 0.4 is available, in the usual place: http://www.badgers-in-foil.co.uk/projects/docbook-css/ This release is primarily to address the issue of vague terms of use for the stylesheets. The file COPYING[1], included in the distribution sets these out, and a note[2] in every CSS file distributed makes reference to this. Other changes that made it into this release: - Support for the classes attribute of , allowing for the values; starttag, endtag, emptytag, attvalue, genentity, sgmlcomment and xmlpi - Support for valign=top and valigh=bottom attribute/values for table elements dave [1]http://www.badgers-in-foil.co.uk/projects/docbook-css/COPYING.txt [2]http://www.badgers-in-foil.co.uk/projects/docbook-css/cssref/stylesheet-driver.css.html -- http://david.holroyd.me.uk/