Bug 511404 - RFE: support stepalternatives
Summary: RFE: support stepalternatives
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Publican
Classification: Community
Component: publican
Version: 2.0
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Michael Hideo
QA Contact: Joshua Wulf
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2009-07-15 00:32 UTC by Christopher Curran
Modified: 2014-10-19 22:57 UTC (History)
7 users (show)

Fixed In Version: 1.3
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-12-10 05:12:58 UTC


Attachments (Terms of Use)
example of step alternative support (19.63 KB, image/png)
2009-11-26 04:27 UTC, Jeff Fearn 🐞
no flags Details


Links
System ID Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Bugzilla 687894 None None None Never

Internal Links: 687894

Description Christopher Curran 2009-07-15 00:32:34 UTC
Description of problem:
As you may or may not know, the stepalternatives tag presently has no special formatting. Presently it formats the same way as itemized list items format. What I would love to see is the words "optional" or "alternative step" or whatever Brian suggests placed in front of the text in the step. Perhaps some light bold markup or similar.

There is a business case for this. It makes my life easier for explaining how to use different features. Presently using admonitions or repeating the procedure is the easiest way to write around it and get a similar effect. The problem with this is using admonitions is distracting and may be interpreted as no-core functionality.


Additional info:
Cider.

Comment 1 David O'Brien 2009-07-15 00:53:54 UTC
Putting a label on this tag will only limit its usefulness. If you add "optional" to all <stepalternative> tags then they can only be used as optional. If you call them alternatives, then they can only be that. It will also require revisiting and validating all those instances where the tag has already been used. Relying on formatting is ok; adding textual labels is highly questionable. There is also a team of people involved in working on our style guide, not a single person.

Comment 2 Jeff Fearn 🐞 2009-07-15 01:50:21 UTC
FYI 1: stepalternative does have:

Attribute

Name: performance
	

Type Enumeration:

optional
required
	

Default: "required"

FYI 2: Neither optional or required are contained in the translation strings in DocBook, meaning automated translation of the labels would require upstream modification.

Comment 3 Christopher Curran 2009-07-15 01:54:20 UTC
Oh, I am aware I am not the only one working. Are you aware the tag is
presently unsupported?
*WARNING: Unvalidated tag: stepalternatives*
This tag may not be displayed correctly, may generate invalid xhtml, or may
breach Section 508 Accessibility standards.

The default is also "required", not optional.

Presently it formats with a bullet point, which in this writers view is
completely wrong. Updating the output to alphabet characters would be a partial
fix. 

There is no reason why something tagged stepalternative --an alternative step--
could not have "Alternative step:" or similar appended to the front. 

The textual tags require localized support, but I'm sure we can get that
with a quick ping around our translators.

Comment 6 Jeff Fearn 🐞 2009-11-26 02:08:05 UTC
(In reply to comment #3)
> The textual tags require localized support, but I'm sure we can get that
> with a quick ping around our translators.  

Localization of the 'textual tags' requires modification of the gentext keys and templates, which must be done in the upstream DocBook xsl.

I am looking in to the other issues raised.

Comment 7 Jeff Fearn 🐞 2009-11-26 04:27:27 UTC
Created attachment 373911 [details]
example of step alternative support

Generated from this XML structure

   <step>
    <para>
     Once the installation of Windows Server 2003 (or R2) 32-bit edition is complete, confirm that Service Pack 2 was included in the initial installation of Windows Server 2003 before proceeding.
    </para>
    <substeps>
     <step>
      <para>
       Open the <application>System Properties</application> dialog box using one of the following methods:
      </para>
      <stepalternatives>
      <step>
       <para>
        Open the <application>System</application> applet in <application>Control Panel</application>; or
       </para>
      </step>
      <step>
       <para>
        Right-click on <application>My Computer</application> and choose <application>Properties</application>.
       </para>
      </step>
      </stepalternatives>
     </step>

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2009-12-08 02:14:19 UTC
publican-1.3-0.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/publican-1.3-0.fc12

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2009-12-08 02:17:43 UTC
publican-1.3-0.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/publican-1.3-0.fc11

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2009-12-10 04:13:18 UTC
publican-1.3-0.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2009-12-10 04:26:11 UTC
publican-1.3-0.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.