M.Canales.es wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Looks like the stylesheets revision for LFS is done for
now, until have
> DocBook-xsl-1.72.1 available.
>
> The unique visible change in the XHTML output is that
chapters TOC has been
> added, as was suggested. An on-line version is
available here:
>
> http://www.lfs-e
s.info/new-lfs-book/
>
> In PDF output there are several changes. To can compare
it, both the current
> PDF and the new one can be downloaded from here:
>
> http://www.lfs-es.info/new-lfs-book/fop0-lfs-book.pdf
current PDF
>
> http://www.lfs-es.info/new-lfs-book/fop1-lfs-book.pdf
new PDF
>
> I'm awaiting your comments, sugestions and complaints,
not only about the
> outputs look but also about the documentational
comments in the stylesheets,
> before start working on the BLFS stylesheets update.
I took a look at both the html and the pdf versions. Both
look very
nice. I have no issues with the html version at all, but I
do have two
issues about the pdf version that I think are worthy of
discussion.
I think of the pdf version as being targeted for printing on
paper.
When looking at the divisions, each section starts on its
own page. I
think that this is proper for html, but I'm not certain it
is right for
a paper version. The place I first noticed it is in the
preface where
each section i, ii, iii, etc starts at the top of the page.
It would seem to me that each section should continue on to
the next
section of a page as long as two lines of text that
immediately follow a
section title fit on a page.
I do think that each section in Chapters 5 and 6 that
install a new
package should start on a new page, but places like Chapters
8 and 9 and
possibly 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 should 'flow'.
It would also be nice to solve the problem of long urls that
cause ugly
spacing when the text is fully justified. Examples are:
page 13
(section 1.5), page 14, page 206 (section 7.5), page 217
(7.12.1).
The last paragraph on page 224 (8.2) also suffers from the
long-name-spacing-problem.
These word spacing issues vary a bit in 'badness', but it
would be nice
if there were optional (zero width space) breaks at slash
('/') and
underscore ('_') characters.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://
www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
|
I can't
really see a difference, apart from the 'Up'
links.
Guess that's all I have to say about that.
--
JH
--
