[projectaon] Re: Multiple instances of large illustrations?
- From: Jonathan Blake <blake.jon@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:27:24 -0700
On 8/15/05, Thomas Wolmer <angantyr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [ ] Jon - consider another mad idea
>
> As you all know, one improvement that we make to the books is that we,
> unobstructed by the typographic space constraints of a printed book,
> generously put the small illustrations in all sections where they fit.
> As a few might remember, I once proposed that we do the same to the
> large illustrations, since they are sometimes equally applicable to
> several parallel sections. Nothing happened at that time...
Another of my regrets: not following up on more of these ideas. Having
spoken of the PDF versions recently, my one concern is that the large
illustrations not appear more than once in the PDF which is nominally
there to be printed (but not really "there" since we don't have any
PDF editions at present).
> Benefits:
> - The sections where the illustrations are located and the separate
> illustrations sections look just like they do today (the XHTML code is
> identical).
> - The illustrations can appear any number of times, just like the
> small illustrations.
> - The illustrations index can contain links straight to the
> illustration sections, as well as to the section where they appear.
> - No extra files are created.
>
> Sacrifices:
> - To avoid excessive ugliness in the XSL or XML files, I added a new
> block entity to the DTD (empty, with just link attributes) for the
> locations.
Good. I would prefer the name "illref" and make sure it also has the
core attributes.
> - The illustrations have to be defined somewhere, and I opted for just
> dumping them in the numbered sections <data>, before the actual
> sections.
Instead, how about putting them in a new, optional "illustrations" tag
right after the "meta" tag for the "gamebook" element, so we could
collect all illustration definitions into one location for the whole
gamebook.
> - The DTD is backwards compatible, but the XSL is not. This could be
> fixed though.
Go for it. Just make sure the XSL is also backwards compatible, and if
you can, make the latex.xsl work with this also. Shouldn't take too
long. :)
--
Jon
Other related posts: