Re: Custom docbook stylesheets.

[Baoqiu Cui <cbaoqiu@yahoo.com>]

Hi Dale,

Dale Smith <dsmith@vtiinstruments.com> writes:

> Dale Smith <dsmith@vtiinstruments.com> writes:
>
>>>>> The current org-export-docbook-xslt-proc-command is a format string,
>>>>> with a fixed order of arguments (the fo filename and then the input
>>>>> docbook filname).  Thats probably good enough for most (all?) xslt
>>>>> processors, but things may be more limited when it comes to also
>>>>> specifying the stylesheet.  Do we need to have some kind of special
>>>>> markers in the format string for where the different options go?
>>>>> Something like $i $o and $s (for in, out, and stysheet)?
>>>
>>> I thought about doing something similar to make the commands easier to
>>> set, but stopped pursuing that after seeing the format string style
>>> worked fine.  I am not sure if any other Emacs modes/packages have done
>>> something like this, i.e. using (semi)named arguments.
>>
>> Well, it took me a while, but it found it.  It's the format-spec
>> function. (Actually, http://edward.oconnor.cx/2009/06/format-spec
>> clued me in.)
>>
>> I'll have a go at it today and see if I can send in a patch.
>
> Ok.  This works for me.  Docs are not updated.  That would push me
> over the 10 line limit. ;^)

Thanks for working on this patch, which looks very good to me!  Yes, I
think format-spec is the right way to go, and it does make the command
format more flexible.

> Now we can easily add other options, like %s for stylesheets or
> whatever.  Maybe something like %p to set parameters. (As in the
> --stringparam option to xsltproc).

I like %s (for stylesheets).  For %p, I guess we can use it to format a
*set* of parameters.

> What would be cool is a way to allow the user to *add* custom spec
> chars to the default set. (hint hint)

Will we make it *too* flexible by doing this? ;-)

Thanks again!
Baoqiu