This is the mail archive of the
docbook-apps@lists.oasis-open.org
mailing list .
Re: Problem - not generating Section TOC
- From: Andy Jewell <andy_jewell at fanniemae dot com>
- To: David Cramer <dcramer at broadjump dot com>
- Cc: Docbook List <docbook-apps at lists dot oasis-open dot org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 08:01:52 -0400
- Subject: Re: DOCBOOK-APPS: Problem - not generating Section TOC
- Organization: Fannie Mae
- References: <97B71B827DFB2B448A73EC00E5DA0EE63CA08A@logos.inhouse.broadjump.com>
Ah - a newbie's sigh of relief: at least I'm not totally off the mark;)
Thanks for your help - I'll log it. . .
-- Andy
David Cramer wrote:
> I think you've come across a feature that is in the process of being
> reimplemented. I did search for generate.section.toc.level and didn't
> find it in the /fo or /common directories. I notice that
> http://docbook.sourceforge.net/release/xsl/1.53.0/doc/fo/generate.toc.ht
> ml mentions generate.section.toc.depth, but the link is dead and the
> parameter reference doesn't mention that param. Also, I notice that the
> string 'toc' doesn't appear anywhere in fo/sections.xsl, but
> html/sections.xsl has promsing looking code for toc generation like:
>
> <xsl:if test="(contains($toc.params, 'toc')
> and $depth <= $generate.section.toc.level)
> or refentry">
> <xsl:call-template name="section.toc"/>
> </xsl:if>
>
> Looks like you need to log a bug:
> http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=21935&atid=373747
>
> David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Jewell [mailto:andy_jewell@fanniemae.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 3:19 PM
> To: Dennis Grace
> Cc: Docbook List
> Subject: Re: DOCBOOK-APPS: Problem - not generating Section TOC
>
> Unfortunately, that wasn't it - here are my TOC parameters:
>
> <xsl:param name="section.autolabel" select="1"/>
> <xsl:param name="toc.section.depth">3</xsl:param>
> <xsl:param name="generate.section.toc.level">3</xsl:param>
> <xsl:param name="generate.toc">
> section toc
> sect1 toc
> /sect1 toc
> chapter/sect1 toc
> </xsl:param>
>
> And it still didn't work. . . Any other ideas?
>
> -- Andy