Miller, Ray (Centech) wrote:
>>> I suppose that almost each project which is using DocBook and FO for
> generating printed output uses more or less customized stylesheets. <<
>
> I don't believe the issue is capability; substantial tailoring can be
> obtained from the stringparms. This, combined with the stability and
> maturity of the stylesheets is a boon to most of us. However stylesheet
> customizations are another story. Unless one is proficient in stylesheet
> development and has extensive Docbook stylesheet understanding,
> customization can be a daunting experience. While Bob Stayton's book is
> a tremendous asset and considered by many (including me) as prerequisite
> to any stylesheet customization attempt, the complexity of the Docbook
> stylesheets is the core issue. I continue to struggle with customization
> and believe a more uniform template structure (naming included) that
> supports simple wrapping is warranted. Currently, one must endeavor to
> trace the call-templates, apply-templates and template matches to
> ascertain why a simple customization has failed to yield the desired
> results.
You can't have it both ways Ray.
The complexity (== flexibility and coverage) of docbook makes it
useful.
If you simplified the element structure, you'd lose that.
The stylesheets would be easier to use, easier to trace etc,
but the end result wouldn't be as good.
If more people helped document the customisation, tdg etc
then there would be more help to users of the schema and
stylesheets.
I guess we're getting back what we put in, like most
open software?
regards
--
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk