40051 -2A stylesheet problem with chapter nos

Hi,

Lynn - I've e-mailed you a number of times since you responded to me regarding the chapter number issue, but haven't heard back from you so I'm just adding a follow-up here in case you never received my question.

The chapter number problem is fixed, but the main issue I am seeing now when composing to either a preview or to pdf is that none of the xrefs actually produce a clickable link. This is the first time I've used an XSL-FO type stylesheet with Print Composer (most of my previous books used FOSI - and these always worked fine) so should this work? Is this a problem in the stylesheet? or in my tagging?

Anyone else using the 40051 stylesheets have this problem? and if so, how did you fix it?

Thanks - KM

Kathleen,

Does Alyssa have an e-mail contact address? Does she support the DTD or the stylesheets?

Thanks,

Kim

Lynn,

Can you tell me how to contact LOGSA? I went to their official website and it isn't obvious to me how I should proceed. I did see a contact on the AMCOM publications website, but they don't say they support the 2361D version of the DTD and stylesheet. Should I e-mail them anyway? or maybe I should go through our TACOM contact to report the issues?

Any advice?

KM

Was the ever resolved?

If not, there is a bug in the XSL-FO itself. The routine that built the TOC is calling a routine that loses the stack. I was able to fix it by commenting out that routine and using one earlier that worked. The problem was noticeable in the C version when a volume tag was applied. I did note the fix back to IMMC and it is likely fixed. It could not correctly assign the WP numbers (was off by one).

If you have to debug the FO it is helpful to locate the module responsible for outputting that section of the document. The FO design is elegant and modular so this is not actually hard to do.

I've since moved to a new job and am not working with 40051 at the moment.

Len Bullard

Teledyne Brown Engineering

Hi,

My general xref problems has been mostly resolved through my tinkering with the stylesheets, but I haven't had to generate the TOC until now. It does have problems.

It generates the correct WP ID reference for items in the TOC, but it doesn't generate any page number references for items at all. Instead, it just repeats the relevant WP ID for each entry in the TOC.

I looked at the XSL and don't really see where those page numbers might be pulling from either, but admittedly, I haven't really had much time to look at it. The WP-pgnos are being created correctly (mostly) in the actual WP page footer although there a few places where the blank page reference isn't being generated for a 1-page WP (even though most of the WPs are referencing the same page template. Some seem to be OK, others are not.)

Most of the issues I've run into have, I believe, been reported to LOGSA by my customer. I just haven't seen any fixes.

Anyone dealt with this TOC problem?

KM

From what I've heard (since LOGSA DTD/Stylesheet file set was mentioned), the Chapter page problem is fixed in Version 1.9 of the LOGSA stylesheet.

CAVEAT - What I've heard is only anecdotal, as I'm still using V 1.8, because I found that V 1.9 had other probs (content running off PDF pages w/PrintComposer - WarnSum and Alpha Index, to name two.) We've stayed with V 1.8 because bad Warn Sum is a show stopper for us.

FYI - We (a small TM outfit) don't edit DTDs or XSLT files for our XML TM projects, as we'd have to re-apply edits every time they changed at LOGSA, not to mention that our delivered PDF TMs would differ from what was generated by our gov't tech writer counterparts on their systems using the 'stock' LOGSA files. I'm curious about how you make editing their DTDs and XSLT files work in a non-aggravating way?

Regards all,

Bob W.

Bristol, RI, US

Bob,

First, I never edit DTDs unless directed to by the owner of such.

As for tinkering with the stylesheets (we are using v1_0 for 2361D DTD) - We did explain to our customer that making stylesheet changes was not considered good policy for the same reasons you stated, although I do know of companies that maintain their own customized versions of the LOGSA files.

The changes I've made to our copy of the stylesheets are fairly minor and were precipitated by specific comments from a reviewer about format issues in the PDF output that they were adamant about. I weighed my choices and decided that it would just be easier to automate some of these by modifying the stylesheet as opposed to having to manually fix the PDF files (as we were advised to do) each time we composed multiple books for their review.

KM