Steve Izma <si...@golden.net> wrote: > I've made a lot of notes about this, and I promise that soon I > will try to document this and other issues that make XML to groff > processing tricky.
Most of us would like to read this, it's a very intersting issue about troff. Please, inform the list when you've got a draft of this document. > That's exactly what you need to do, but it's not general-purpose > because each project that has a different DTD would require > rewriting the dictionary to include the inline tags for that DTD. > As far as I know, there's no conventional way of flagging inline > tags in DTDs or schemas. E.g., typical ways of tagging emphasis: > <i>, <e1>, <italic>, <emphasis>, <emphasis type="bold">. This problem is, in my opinion, true for all xml-to-print software: you'll have to make typographical and layout choices, you'll have to choose how to render each specific tag, and this can't be done a priori for all the existing xml schemas. Making a distinction between inline and block elements is a little part of this work. Furthermore, the fact that the distinction between inline and block elements doesn't exist in xml is not only a problem for troff, but for most of the printers. The CSS style sheet *must* define if a tag is an inline or a block element to render properly an xhtml page - we usually forget this because most of the tags have a default definition. Cheers, Pierre-Jean.
