Merge requested proposed by @mlinksva has been changed slightly by
@bkuhn because there were changes to the README.md file since the
merge request was submitted that made some of the changes moot.
@keynote2k was the first to point out that the in-page anchor links in
the Guide failed to function properly, due to Bootstrap's fixed navbar.
This mixed solution of CSS and Javascript is the best solution I've been
able to come up with for the problem. The CSS solution is obviously
preferable, and is used herein for those anchor id attributes in the
Guide that have no href of their own.
Due to problems with using a pure CSS solution where the anchor includes
both an href and a id attribute. The Javascript solution is specific
for those cases. I took care not to have them both happen at once, as
they would undoubtedly conflict.
I did a inordinate amount of research about this issue. Bootstrap's own
page about the fixed navbar:
http://getbootstrap.com/examples/navbar-fixed-top/
doesn't discuss this issue at all, but there is a bug in Booststrap's
bugtracker:
https://github.com/twitter/bootstrap/issues/1768
which discusses the issue. (However, I don't understand why that bug is
closed, since none of the solutions I implement herein truly solve it).
The most useful page I found regarding this issue is this one:
http://nicolasgallagher.com/jump-links-and-viewport-positioning/demo
which offers several pure CCS solutions (each with drawbacks and
advantages). Unfortunately, none of those solutions consider the
question of anchor links that have both href and id attributes, and none
of them work properly in that situation.
In the HTML rendered versions of the guide, the quoted text, using the
previous CSS herein include, seemed to prominent.
Hopefully, this change will resolve that issue.
There was one minor change to the title page on master that isn't
represented on 'next'. While I could have rebased, I chose to merge so
I didn't have delete the publicly published 'next' branch on gitorious
like I have to do when I rebase.
I think this sounds better. While "enforcement" is a noun and therefore
it seems it should be "pluralizable", "enforcements" wasn't in my
dictionary as a correctly spelled word, and that made me realize I'd
never heard "enforcements" used in a plural before, and it immediately
sounded weird. So, I changed it.
The unicode ’ was introduced by the pasted text mention in the previous
commits. While I believe LaTeX can be configured to accept Unicode
quote equivalents, it seems simpler to me merely to replace the
character with an appropriate version that LaTeX expects in this
situation by default.
Much of the pasted text here was useful. However, some of the claims
were broad reaching, I've reigned those in. (e.g., saying "Taken
together, these provisions mean:" was a bit strong).
Also, in that specific spot, the conclusions made in the text were
described as applying to LGPLv2.1, but are clearly conclusions about
LGPLv3. I've corrected that herein.
Finally, I had to write a bunch of next text to make the pasted text
work, and also added one FIXME for later of where things could be
improved further.
