You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@forrest.apache.org by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org> on 2003/01/04 13:02:45 UTC
Standard DTD (was Re: [VOTE] FakeForrest is ready!)
Miles Elam wrote:
> Robert Koberg wrote:
>
[...]
> Simplified DocBook I think fits the role of a round peg here.
> http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/xml/simple/
[...]
> Have you found the same to be true of the simplified version?
> http://www.docbook.org/tdg/simple/en/html/sdocbook.html
[...]
> It was not my intention to muddy the waters here, but I thought these
> links might be interesting if for no other reason than to have another
> schema with which to compare when making your own.
I think that we should embrace a standard instead of continuing on our
own DTD.
Reasons:
- editors: standards have editors that users can really use to
edit our docs
- users: users know standard DTDs already, but have to take some time
to learn ours.
- interoperability: using a standard DTD makes it easy for other tools
to output to that DTD for us or viceversa
I had proposed XHTML 2 as a base for our new DTD; and also did a
comparison. Nothing followed.
If someone wants to go forward with it, here's the link; in the middle
there is a tag-per-tag comparison:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=102909917505608&w=2
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Standard DTD (was Re: [VOTE] FakeForrest is ready!)
Posted by Joerg Pietschmann <j3...@yahoo.de>.
On Saturday 04 January 2003 13:14, Steven Noels wrote:
> I just had a quick look at sdocbook - would it be a candidate for a
> mid-tier format?
More source than mid-tier I would think. It's still more semantic markup
than XHTML.
> What do you think?
DocBook is the base of LinuxDoc (i.e. there is a certain user base),
and many Linux distributions can install a (more or less) working
DocBook processing environment right out of the box.
J.Pietschmann
Re: Standard DTD (was Re: [VOTE] FakeForrest is ready!)
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> I think that we should embrace a standard instead of continuing on our
> own DTD.
Support rather than embrace maybe.
I just had a quick look at sdocbook - would it be a candidate for a
mid-tier format?
> Reasons:
> - editors: standards have editors that users can really use to
> edit our docs
> - users: users know standard DTDs already, but have to take some time
> to learn ours.
> - interoperability: using a standard DTD makes it easy for other tools
> to output to that DTD for us or viceversa
>
> I had proposed XHTML 2 as a base for our new DTD; and also did a
> comparison. Nothing followed.
> If someone wants to go forward with it, here's the link; in the middle
> there is a tag-per-tag comparison:
>
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=102909917505608&w=2
XHTML2 is under lots of pressure IIRC. Too much, too soon.
What we could do is having such a setup:
ENTRY MID-TIER
xdocs CAP sdocbook skin xsl-fo
sdocbook ----> or ----> (x)html
xhtml2? xhtml2 rss
status
...
What do you think?
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
Re: Standard DTD (was Re: [VOTE] FakeForrest is ready!)
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Jeff Turner wrote:
> Or rather, make docv11 just another format that Forrest supports.
Jeff is right on the money here.
I'm so sick of people complaining about Forrest because of the DTD. God,
it reminds me of the stupid flamewars about little-endian vs. big-endian
on CPU assembly instructions.
The idea should be: you use whatever DTD/schema you like and Forrest
will take care of the rest.
Like Steven said, publishing should not be a two-phase sequence but a
three-phase one:
original -(adaptation)-> model -(presentation)-> view
of course, this works only if the "model" schema is powerful enough to
contain all the semantics used by any 'original' schemas. So, in this
respect, probably DocBook would be the best schema for that part.
But my suggestion would be to adopt that model but keep it simple and
keep using our Document DTD and add things incrementally to make sure we
really need them (moving from document to docbook is simply too big as a
jump... but simplified docbook might not be... worth considering)
Now, how can we make that adaptation phase as transparent as possible?
--
Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Standard DTD (was Re: [VOTE] FakeForrest is ready!)
Posted by Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 03:33:03PM +1100, David Crossley wrote:
...
> > Forrest needs a bit of restructuring to support multiple
> > document types.
> > Each new doctype requires (at least):
> >
> > - schemas, currently in src/resources/schema/dtd
> > - XSLTs, in src/resources/skins/common/xslt
> > - catalog in src/resources/schema
> > - sitemap mods
> >
> > I was thinking we could package these up into RPM-like bundles,
> > so users could download new doctype support as they need it.
> >
> > Forrest plugins. Hmm. Volunteers? :)
>
> This would be truly excellent to have the infrastructure
> for such plugins. In this way, business could add value
> to Forrest and sell support packages for specialised
> communities. Anyway, back to building the infrastructure.
>
> Great idea Jeff, i will help.
>
> How would it work? Would the forrest-dev community
> maintain configuration files for each supported package
> which define where Ant will get the separate pieces and
> where to insert them into the local build?
>
> Or would Forrest have separate cvs modules to hold copies
> of the various released schemas, i.e. pre-prepared packages
> of all the bits, that would be maintained by forrest-dev?
So it's a choice of when the pieces are assembled: once by a Forrest dev,
or dynamically on the user's computer.
I've implemented the first with a handful of Ant scripts (which in turn
download others..) and ViewCVS:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=103770809113417&w=2
The second 'pre-packaged' thing is more ambitious, but still fairly
do-able. Just a (signed) jar with a META-INF/control.xml Ant script
describing how to 'deploy' the jar contents to the Forrest installation.
--Jeff
> --David
>
Re: Standard DTD (was Re: [VOTE] FakeForrest is ready!)
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@indexgeo.com.au>.
Jeff Turner wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> > Miles Elam wrote:
> > >Robert Koberg wrote:
> > >
> > [...]
> >
> > >Simplified DocBook I think fits the role of a round peg here.
> > >http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/xml/simple/
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >Have you found the same to be true of the simplified version?
> > >http://www.docbook.org/tdg/simple/en/html/sdocbook.html
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >It was not my intention to muddy the waters here, but I thought these
> > >links might be interesting if for no other reason than to have another
> > >schema with which to compare when making your own.
> >
> > I think that we should embrace a standard instead of continuing on our
> > own DTD.
>
> +1
>
> Or rather, make docv11 just another format that Forrest supports.
Forrest already does support any format you like. It is
easy to configure for other document types. At the
xml-commons project we have mixed types, some in full
DocBook some in document-v11 type. Using the project
sitemap.xmap and cocoon.xconf it is very easy.
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-commons-dev&m=104037450832414
However, we do need to make it even easier and platform
independent. I like Jeff's proposal below.
<snip/>
>
> Forrest needs a bit of restructuring to support multiple
> document types.
> Each new doctype requires (at least):
>
> - schemas, currently in src/resources/schema/dtd
> - XSLTs, in src/resources/skins/common/xslt
> - catalog in src/resources/schema
> - sitemap mods
>
> I was thinking we could package these up into RPM-like bundles,
> so users could download new doctype support as they need it.
>
> Forrest plugins. Hmm. Volunteers? :)
This would be truly excellent to have the infrastructure
for such plugins. In this way, business could add value
to Forrest and sell support packages for specialised
communities. Anyway, back to building the infrastructure.
Great idea Jeff, i will help.
How would it work? Would the forrest-dev community
maintain configuration files for each supported package
which define where Ant will get the separate pieces and
where to insert them into the local build?
Or would Forrest have separate cvs modules to hold copies
of the various released schemas, i.e. pre-prepared packages
of all the bits, that would be maintained by forrest-dev?
--David
Re: Standard DTD (was Re: [VOTE] FakeForrest is ready!)
Posted by Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 01:02:45PM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
> Miles Elam wrote:
> >Robert Koberg wrote:
> >
> [...]
>
> >Simplified DocBook I think fits the role of a round peg here.
> >http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/xml/simple/
>
> [...]
>
> >Have you found the same to be true of the simplified version?
> >http://www.docbook.org/tdg/simple/en/html/sdocbook.html
>
> [...]
>
> >It was not my intention to muddy the waters here, but I thought these
> >links might be interesting if for no other reason than to have another
> >schema with which to compare when making your own.
>
> I think that we should embrace a standard instead of continuing on our
> own DTD.
+1
Or rather, make docv11 just another format that Forrest supports.
> Reasons:
> - editors: standards have editors that users can really use to
> edit our docs
> - users: users know standard DTDs already, but have to take some time
> to learn ours.
> - interoperability: using a standard DTD makes it easy for other tools
> to output to that DTD for us or viceversa
>
> I had proposed XHTML 2 as a base for our new DTD; and also did a
> comparison. Nothing followed.
> If someone wants to go forward with it, here's the link; in the middle
> there is a tag-per-tag comparison:
>
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=102909917505608&w=2
Forrest needs a bit of restructuring to support multiple document types.
Each new doctype requires (at least):
- schemas, currently in src/resources/schema/dtd
- XSLTs, in src/resources/skins/common/xslt
- catalog in src/resources/schema
- sitemap mods
I was thinking we could package these up into RPM-like bundles, so users
could download new doctype support as they need it.
Forrest plugins. Hmm. Volunteers? :)
--Jeff