You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to derby-dev@db.apache.org by scott hutinger <S-...@wiu.edu> on 2007/01/12 23:29:12 UTC
DITA 1.3.1 without any patches from lib
BTW, I did a build without patches in a pdf file, and the top header is
the name of the document title, not the copyright title.
'Getting Started with Derby' was on every page where the word Copyright
currently is. Of course some of the items that the patches fix, such as
table of contents links, title page etc, were broken compared to what is
the norm. Something takes the <title> and puts in in the header.
I think the title on top of the page might be a better idea(?)
scott
Re: DITA 1.3.1 without any patches from lib
Posted by Laura Stewart <sc...@gmail.com>.
On 1/29/07, scott hutinger <S-...@wiu.edu> wrote:
> Yes, FOP.93 is a major re-write of fop. I didn't investigate much yet..
> so don't know of anything (yet) along with bookmarks, that would turn it
> off or on.
>
> scott
You might be interested in reading the tread entitled
"Is ANT setup to read only DITA-OT1.1.2.1 for Derby files?"
and the info that I just posted...
I am waiting to hear back from Andrew
--
Laura Stewart
Re: DITA 1.3.1 without any patches from lib
Posted by scott hutinger <S-...@wiu.edu>.
Laura Stewart wrote:
> On 1/29/07, scott hutinger <S-...@wiu.edu> wrote:
>> Hi Laura,
>>
>> No table of contents with page numbers with the new dita0T existed;
>> although I was also using FOP.93 which didn't create the index either
>> (with either DITA 1.2.x and 1.3.x). A lot of the functionality in the
>> derby docs are a patch to DITA in both 1.2.x versions and before. I did
>> use a program called meld:
>> http://meld.sourceforge.net/
>> to look at the differences between the patched 1.2.x (the patches are
>> replacement files in the doc trunk /lib), and wasn't certain it was
>> worth moving everything over).
>>
>> So, to get stuff like the index, derby 1.2.x patches need to be moved
>> over to DITA1.3.x. Sort of a time consuming process, as a lot of the
>> diffs are the same (somewhat) although they might not look like it. I
>> think some of the DITAOTx.x.x differences are post derby changes, as I
>> think Jeff worked with some of the people doing the DITA work.
>> scott
>>
>
> What I did was get a copy of the documentation source before all of
> the patches to DITAOT1.1.2.1 were generated (by Jeff and Andrew?) and
> I used that source with DITAOT1.3 to generate the PDF output. I wanted
> to see what things were fixed by the new toolkit version so that we
> could eliminate any patches that are no longer necessary. I look at
> the meld program as that seems like a simplier way :-)
>
Yes, I tried the same thing (without any patches).
> But I was disappointed that the index did not generate since this new
> version claims to have done a lot of work on the index and getting it
> to appear. I have asked about this on the toolkit user list.
>
I didn't spend much time on that, I just checked to see if it output or
not...
> Is FOP .93 the latest version? I know nolthing about it ...
> Can you think of anything in the fo2pdf settings that would turn off
> the index generation?
>
Yes, FOP.93 is a major re-write of fop. I didn't investigate much yet..
so don't know of anything (yet) along with bookmarks, that would turn it
off or on.
scott
Re: DITA 1.3.1 without any patches from lib
Posted by scott hutinger <S-...@wiu.edu>.
Looking at fop, it has some different extensions in the older version
<fox:outline>, but uses something different in the newer version to
generate bookmarks etc...
So I am guessing that fop has updated some tags:
http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/compliance.html
gives a quick overview of some of the items. I haven't looked though
all this yet....
scott
Laura Stewart wrote:
> On 1/29/07, scott hutinger <S-...@wiu.edu> wrote:
>> Hi Laura,
>>
>> No table of contents with page numbers with the new dita0T existed;
>> although I was also using FOP.93 which didn't create the index either
>> (with either DITA 1.2.x and 1.3.x). A lot of the functionality in the
>> derby docs are a patch to DITA in both 1.2.x versions and before. I did
>> use a program called meld:
>> http://meld.sourceforge.net/
>> to look at the differences between the patched 1.2.x (the patches are
>> replacement files in the doc trunk /lib), and wasn't certain it was
>> worth moving everything over).
>>
>> So, to get stuff like the index, derby 1.2.x patches need to be moved
>> over to DITA1.3.x. Sort of a time consuming process, as a lot of the
>> diffs are the same (somewhat) although they might not look like it. I
>> think some of the DITAOTx.x.x differences are post derby changes, as I
>> think Jeff worked with some of the people doing the DITA work.
>> scott
>>
>
> What I did was get a copy of the documentation source before all of
> the patches to DITAOT1.1.2.1 were generated (by Jeff and Andrew?) and
> I used that source with DITAOT1.3 to generate the PDF output. I wanted
> to see what things were fixed by the new toolkit version so that we
> could eliminate any patches that are no longer necessary. I look at
> the meld program as that seems like a simplier way :-)
>
> But I was disappointed that the index did not generate since this new
> version claims to have done a lot of work on the index and getting it
> to appear. I have asked about this on the toolkit user list.
>
> Is FOP .93 the latest version? I know nolthing about it ...
> Can you think of anything in the fo2pdf settings that would turn off
> the index generation?
>
Re: DITA 1.3.1 without any patches from lib
Posted by Laura Stewart <sc...@gmail.com>.
On 1/29/07, scott hutinger <S-...@wiu.edu> wrote:
> Hi Laura,
>
> No table of contents with page numbers with the new dita0T existed;
> although I was also using FOP.93 which didn't create the index either
> (with either DITA 1.2.x and 1.3.x). A lot of the functionality in the
> derby docs are a patch to DITA in both 1.2.x versions and before. I did
> use a program called meld:
> http://meld.sourceforge.net/
> to look at the differences between the patched 1.2.x (the patches are
> replacement files in the doc trunk /lib), and wasn't certain it was
> worth moving everything over).
>
> So, to get stuff like the index, derby 1.2.x patches need to be moved
> over to DITA1.3.x. Sort of a time consuming process, as a lot of the
> diffs are the same (somewhat) although they might not look like it. I
> think some of the DITAOTx.x.x differences are post derby changes, as I
> think Jeff worked with some of the people doing the DITA work.
> scott
>
What I did was get a copy of the documentation source before all of
the patches to DITAOT1.1.2.1 were generated (by Jeff and Andrew?) and
I used that source with DITAOT1.3 to generate the PDF output. I wanted
to see what things were fixed by the new toolkit version so that we
could eliminate any patches that are no longer necessary. I look at
the meld program as that seems like a simplier way :-)
But I was disappointed that the index did not generate since this new
version claims to have done a lot of work on the index and getting it
to appear. I have asked about this on the toolkit user list.
Is FOP .93 the latest version? I know nolthing about it ...
Can you think of anything in the fo2pdf settings that would turn off
the index generation?
--
Laura Stewart
Re: DITA 1.3.1 without any patches from lib
Posted by scott hutinger <S-...@wiu.edu>.
Hi Laura,
No table of contents with page numbers with the new dita0T existed;
although I was also using FOP.93 which didn't create the index either
(with either DITA 1.2.x and 1.3.x). A lot of the functionality in the
derby docs are a patch to DITA in both 1.2.x versions and before. I did
use a program called meld:
http://meld.sourceforge.net/
to look at the differences between the patched 1.2.x (the patches are
replacement files in the doc trunk /lib), and wasn't certain it was
worth moving everything over).
So, to get stuff like the index, derby 1.2.x patches need to be moved
over to DITA1.3.x. Sort of a time consuming process, as a lot of the
diffs are the same (somewhat) although they might not look like it. I
think some of the DITAOTx.x.x differences are post derby changes, as I
think Jeff worked with some of the people doing the DITA work.
scott
Laura Stewart wrote:
> On 1/12/07, Jean T. Anderson <jt...@bristowhill.com> wrote:
>> scott hutinger wrote:
>> > BTW, I did a build without patches in a pdf file, and the top
>> header is
>> > the name of the document title, not the copyright title.
>> > 'Getting Started with Derby' was on every page where the word
>> Copyright
>> > currently is. Of course some of the items that the patches fix,
>> such as
>> > table of contents links, title page etc, were broken compared to
>> what is
>> > the norm. Something takes the <title> and puts in in the header.
>> >
>> > I think the title on top of the page might be a better idea(?)
>>
>> I agree title would be better.
>>
>> -jean
>
> Scott - did your output generate an index?
> When I used the new toolkit, the PDF did not include an index.
>
>
Re: DITA 1.3.1 without any patches from lib
Posted by Laura Stewart <sc...@gmail.com>.
On 1/12/07, Jean T. Anderson <jt...@bristowhill.com> wrote:
> scott hutinger wrote:
> > BTW, I did a build without patches in a pdf file, and the top header is
> > the name of the document title, not the copyright title.
> > 'Getting Started with Derby' was on every page where the word Copyright
> > currently is. Of course some of the items that the patches fix, such as
> > table of contents links, title page etc, were broken compared to what is
> > the norm. Something takes the <title> and puts in in the header.
> >
> > I think the title on top of the page might be a better idea(?)
>
> I agree title would be better.
>
> -jean
Scott - did your output generate an index?
When I used the new toolkit, the PDF did not include an index.
--
Laura Stewart
Re: DITA 1.3.1 without any patches from lib
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
scott hutinger wrote:
> BTW, I did a build without patches in a pdf file, and the top header is
> the name of the document title, not the copyright title.
> 'Getting Started with Derby' was on every page where the word Copyright
> currently is. Of course some of the items that the patches fix, such as
> table of contents links, title page etc, were broken compared to what is
> the norm. Something takes the <title> and puts in in the header.
>
> I think the title on top of the page might be a better idea(?)
I agree title would be better.
-jean