Re: [PHP-DOC] cvs: phpdoc /en/functions dbplus.xml ming.xml mysql .xml /nl/functions apache.xml From: eschmid+sic <email protected>
Date: 08/13/01

On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 10:18:11AM +0200, Hojtsy Gábor wrote:
> >> Egon, we still can't read the reasons why this
> >> need to be reverted? Until the reasons, I think it
> >> is unnecessary to revert the changes.
> >
> >I have seen that the transformation of <void/> looks very
> >ugly. There are other reasons, because we have some DSSSL
> >stylesheets which doesn't cover the short <void/> IIRC.
>
> Should we stop improving the xml files, because our DSSSL
> style sheets are not perfectly actual to handle the
> presentation side? In XML the goal is to present the things
> with the meanning, and not to look at the output the first time.
>
> You know well the docbook manual (maybe others are not, so
> an extract whould be good here):
>
> Processing expectations
> -----------------------
>
> The Void element produces generated text that indicates
> the function has no arguments (or returns nothing).
> The exact generated text may vary. One common result
> is void.
>
> So the DocBook docs says, one common result is "void".
> Then we can implement it for this tag to print void.
> As <void/> is the best syntax according to docbook,
> there is no need to revert the changes, it would
> be a step backward. We should go one step further,
> and look into how the void word can be printed
> with DSSSL IMHO.

It was not posible the last 5 years, so I don't see to change the manual
in that direction. What is your problem with that? The syntax <void/> was
not used in the documentation.

This doesn't mean, we should not improve our XML files, but to change all
<parameter>void</parameter> to <void/> is the wrong direction.

-Egon 

-- 
All known books about PHP and related books: http://php.net/books.php 
Concert Band of the University of Hohenheim: http://www.concert-band.de/
First and second bestselling book in German: http://www.php-buch.de/