From: Reece Dunn (msclrhd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-09 17:22:56
Rene Rivera wrote:
>Reece Dunn wrote:
>>Zbynek Winkler wrote:
>>>I do not think it is a good idea to start with such a huge toc. Maybe a
>>>condensed version and/or synopsis and/or "how to use this document" would
>>If there is a consensus on this, I'll have a look into this, but can't
>A detailed TOC at the start of a book is somewhat standard. It gives one
>opportunity to see all that is included in the text. For online docs it
>gives the opportunity to briefly search for some specific topic you are
>interested in, and go there directly. But having the TOC at each page is
>distracting and superfluous. I would recommend, and prefer, having only one
I think Zbynek Winkler was referring to having a ToC similar to that found
on the HTML docs (www.w3.org) where they have a simplified ToC that displays
the chapters only and a "full ToC" available that includes sections, etc.
Having said that, modifying the ToC behaviour could prove more trouble than
it is worth.
>About the navbar...
>The navbar is less than understandable as it stands. What does "Home" and
>mean? Those terms don't tie in to any other page I can see. If one of those
>refers to going to the TOC, then the link should say "TOC". OK, I looked at
>the links themselves, both point to the same location, so why have both?
>Having the links be images with the words in them is pointless. Having
>a non-text image and a text label, or just having a text link is better. My
>ideal would be to put a TOC link on the top navbox only. And create a top
>bottom navbar with previous, current, and next indicators/links. For
These are part of the DocBook stylesheets -- I have lifdted them to add them
to the top of the page for a consistent top and bottom layout. I have no
idea how difficult this would be to change (I presume it would depend how
big a change you want...).
>Chapter 1. How to use... ---- Chapter 2. Installation ---- Chapter 3.
>(in which only chapter 1 and chapter 2 are links... and no images)
>This gives you the navigation, and an immediate frame of reference for what
>the links mean with regards to your current context.
The style that I have submitted has this kind of layout, but is:
Ch 1 | [Home] | Ch 3
[Prev] | [Up] | [Next]
>The coloring on chapter headings and sections is distracting. The more
>natural, from a typographical point of view, is to left-justify the
>and follow them with indented body text. The headers are already different
>enough from the rest of the text to not really need more highlighting.
I have changed the layout so that only the top-level title has the coloured
background. But then again, these styles are not set in stone.
>I would really prefer to just have one page per chapter. It makes for much
>easier reading to just scroll down the logical sequence of the text, as
>opposed to having to flip back and forth through pages of closely related
I suppose that this is a problem of the chunking code; modifying it's
behaviour would be more trouble than it is worth.
>...To summarize, the current L&F has the style of email communications, not
Have you tried a "print preview" facility: the stylesheet discinguises
between screen and print media types :). Also, the HTML pages should have a
more "web" feel to them; the styles do not affect any of the other layouts,
so the XSL:FO formatting retains its look & feel. But I have taken your
thoughts into consideration.
Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk