Dear Charlie,

> Is there a reason why you dropped the lp:contents feature?
> Should I be posting these messages to xml-litprog-l? I posted
> one yesterday.

I dropped it because it was unnecessary, in a sense that I will explain.
The xmLP view is that XML should be converted to a readable format using
generic tools (e.g. XSL-T and/or XSL-FO), so all the xmLP weaver does is
add just enough information so that you can write XSL-T scripts to
generate the documentation without having to understand the business
logic of xmLP.

The problem with the table of contents is that it has its own business
logic (i.e. in how you decide what is or isn't in the table of
contents), and I can't second guess that in xmLP. So, I dropped the
lp:contents element. Where people want to generate a table of contents,
I strongly recommend that they add their own "contents" element to the
literate XML, and replace it appropriately (after xmLP processing) when
converting to a readable format. You can then add xmLP macro
definitions (or not) or anything else to your table of contents.

And yes, xml-litprog-l is a good place for such questions, by all means.

Cheers,
Tony.
========
Anthony B. Coates
XML & Search Architect
Chief Technology Office
Reuters Plc, London.
Tony.Coates@...
========


-------------------------------------------------------------- --
Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.