Some OOP methodsynopsis in our existing DocBook sources are marked up inside classsynopsis, even though the standard is to just have them on their own.  So, while you're doing the fieldsynopsis changes, it seems like a good idea to also adjust the rendering engine produce the same HTML either way.

DOCBOOK WITH CLASSYNOPSIS
-------------------------
  <classsynopsis>
   <ooclass><classname>XMLWriter</classname></ooclass>
   <methodsynopsis>
    <type>bool</type><methodname>openURI</methodname>
    <methodparam><type>string</type><parameter>uri</parameter></methodparam>
   </methodsynopsis>
  </classsynopsis>

STANDARD DOCBOOK
----------------
  <methodsynopsis>
   <type>bool</type><methodname>XMLWriter::openURI</methodname>
   <methodparam><type>string</type><parameter>uri</parameter></methodparam>
  </methodsynopsis>

SHOULD BOTH PRODUCE THE FOLLOWING HTML
--------------------------------------
  <div class="methodsynopsis dc-description">
   <span class="methodname"><b>XMLWriter::openURI</b></span>()
  </div>

Sorry to use this bug report as a way of working through this issue...  It seems like a good idea to have properties marked up the same way we mark up methods -- put the class name in the method/field element.  This is better because it is consistent and shorter.

So the changes should also allow the following markup to produce the same HTML output as discussed above.

DOCBOOK FOR OBJECT
------------------
   <fieldsynopsis>
    <modifier>public</modifier>
    <type>int</type>
    <varname>$foo->bar</varname>
   </fieldsynopsis>

DOCBOOK FOR STATIC
------------------
   <fieldsynopsis>
    <modifier>public</modifier>
    <modifier>static</modifier>
    <type>int</type>
    <varname>foo::$bar</varname>
   </fieldsynopsis>

These are way to many issues in one report.
Specific example page, or the current output would also simplify this.

The <ooclass><classname> stuff is fixed, haven't looked at the fieldsynopsis 
things yet.

I'm fairly certain all issues here are fixed in the current versions.