Placing Abstract and Sotd in table of contents

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Placing Abstract and Sotd in table of contents

Shane McCarron
I was recently asked by the PFWG to ensure the Abstract and Sotd are in
the ToC.  This doesn't seem like it is normal W3C house style, so I
certainly wouldn't do it as a default.  However, would anyone object to
my adding this as an option?  Otherwise I am going to have to mark up
the ReSpec-based PFWG documents by hand!

--
Shane McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
+1 763 786 8160 x120


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Placing Abstract and Sotd in table of contents

Liam R. E. Quin
On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 12:15 -0500, Shane McCarron wrote:
> I was recently asked by the PFWG to ensure the Abstract and Sotd are in
> the ToC.  This doesn't seem like it is normal W3C house style, so I
> certainly wouldn't do it as a default.  However, would anyone object to
> my adding this as an option?  Otherwise I am going to have to mark up
> the ReSpec-based PFWG documents by hand!

Or override the template that generated the table of contents in XSLT,
which is probably not too hard.  However, putting things in the table of
contents that occur before the table of contents is not too useful on a
Web page, and is likely to confuse readers...

Liam
>

--
Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Placing Abstract and Sotd in table of contents

Shane McCarron
I agree.  However, this is apparently something W3M wants so...  I just
bow and scrape.

On 9/7/2011 12:58 PM, Liam R E Quin wrote:

> On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 12:15 -0500, Shane McCarron wrote:
>> I was recently asked by the PFWG to ensure the Abstract and Sotd are in
>> the ToC.  This doesn't seem like it is normal W3C house style, so I
>> certainly wouldn't do it as a default.  However, would anyone object to
>> my adding this as an option?  Otherwise I am going to have to mark up
>> the ReSpec-based PFWG documents by hand!
> Or override the template that generated the table of contents in XSLT,
> which is probably not too hard.  However, putting things in the table of
> contents that occur before the table of contents is not too useful on a
> Web page, and is likely to confuse readers...
>
> Liam

--
Shane McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
+1 763 786 8160 x120


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Placing Abstract and Sotd in table of contents

Robin Berjon-2
In reply to this post by Shane McCarron
On Sep 7, 2011, at 19:15 , Shane McCarron wrote:
> I was recently asked by the PFWG to ensure the Abstract and Sotd are in the ToC.  This doesn't seem like it is normal W3C house style, so I certainly wouldn't do it as a default.  However, would anyone object to my adding this as an option?  Otherwise I am going to have to mark up the ReSpec-based PFWG documents by hand!

Since I had my hands still in there when I got this email, I made a change that supports this.

TL;DR: You can set tocIntroductory to true in your spec's configuration and it should DTRT.

What happens under the hood is that sections with class=introductory, which are ignored for the ToC by default (that class is automatically added to SotD and Abstract), now get included (but not numbered, because it seemed weird). This means that documents which had added other such front material using class=introductory will now show up in the ToC too when this option is enabled. Hopefully that's not an issue (people not using this won't see any difference).

--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Placing Abstract and Sotd in table of contents

Shane McCarron
Thanks for implementing this.  I was in the middle of doing it too, so I
will stop!

I had thought to use lower-case romans for the intro sections, but I
agree that it is weird.  I will revert my changes and test yours out.

On 9/7/2011 2:11 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Sep 7, 2011, at 19:15 , Shane McCarron wrote:
>> I was recently asked by the PFWG to ensure the Abstract and Sotd are in the ToC.  This doesn't seem like it is normal W3C house style, so I certainly wouldn't do it as a default.  However, would anyone object to my adding this as an option?  Otherwise I am going to have to mark up the ReSpec-based PFWG documents by hand!
> Since I had my hands still in there when I got this email, I made a change that supports this.
>
> TL;DR: You can set tocIntroductory to true in your spec's configuration and it should DTRT.
>
> What happens under the hood is that sections with class=introductory, which are ignored for the ToC by default (that class is automatically added to SotD and Abstract), now get included (but not numbered, because it seemed weird). This means that documents which had added other such front material using class=introductory will now show up in the ToC too when this option is enabled. Hopefully that's not an issue (people not using this won't see any difference).
>

--
Shane McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
+1 763 786 8160 x120


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Placing Abstract and Sotd in table of contents

Robin Berjon-2
On Sep 7, 2011, at 21:21 , Shane McCarron wrote:
> Thanks for implementing this.  I was in the middle of doing it too, so I will stop!

Ah, sorry about that — since you asked if people would object I naïvely assumed that you weren't doing it already ;-)

> I had thought to use lower-case romans for the intro sections, but I agree that it is weird.  I will revert my changes and test yours out.

I thought of that but I agree it looks strange. Also, I'm not sure pubrules would love those if they showed up in the <h2> of the relevant sections. It can be quite picky about such things.

--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Placing Abstract and Sotd in table of contents

Shane McCarron


On 9/7/2011 2:35 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Sep 7, 2011, at 21:21 , Shane McCarron wrote:
>> I had thought to use lower-case romans for the intro sections, but I agree that it is weird.  I will revert my changes and test yours out.
> I thought of that but I agree it looks strange. Also, I'm not sure pubrules would love those if they showed up in the<h2>  of the relevant sections. It can be quite picky about such things.

Exactly.  I considered ONLY putting it in the ToC, but that would be
even worse.  This seems a reasonable compromise to me.   I also think it
is pretty dumb and that someone in pubs will object and we will end up
not being able to use it ;-)

>

--
Shane McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
+1 763 786 8160 x120