You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org> on 2005/06/04 19:25:55 UTC
Considering xdoc obsolete
Hi all,
Now that thanks to Steven we have a nice Cocoon-based ASF-hosted CMS, we
have to (and want to) use it!
AFAIU by reading the recent discussions, a difficult point is the xdoc
format used by Cocoon's internal publishing system.
So what about considering xdoc obsolete, remove all the publishing stuff
in src/documentation and migrate everything to xhtml which is understood
both by Forrest and Daisy? That way, we can concentrate on using the
cool features of these modern tools without being always hindered by the
legacy structure.
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://apache.org/~sylvain http://anyware-tech.com
Apache Software Foundation Member Research & Technology Director
Re: Considering xdoc obsolete
Posted by Upayavira <up...@odoko.co.uk>.
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Upayavira wrote:
>
>> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Now that thanks to Steven we have a nice Cocoon-based ASF-hosted CMS,
>>> we have to (and want to) use it!
>>>
>>> AFAIU by reading the recent discussions, a difficult point is the
>>> xdoc format used by Cocoon's internal publishing system.
>>>
>>> So what about considering xdoc obsolete, remove all the publishing
>>> stuff in src/documentation and migrate everything to xhtml which is
>>> understood both by Forrest and Daisy? That way, we can concentrate on
>>> using the cool features of these modern tools without being always
>>> hindered by the legacy structure.
>>
>>
>>
>> That is actually what we have already been doing for the 2.2 efforts.
>>
>> Question for me is whether we want to carry on on 2.2, or convert the
>> 2.1 docs to xhtml/html right now and work on those.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Let's do it right now.
I tend to agree.
> BTW, apart from file layout and document format, is there any difference
> in document _content_ between 2.2 and 2.1?
None yet, but 2.2 is different, and docs for 2.2 would be different.
Regards, Upayavira
Re: Considering xdoc obsolete
Posted by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org>.
Upayavira wrote:
> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Now that thanks to Steven we have a nice Cocoon-based ASF-hosted CMS,
>> we have to (and want to) use it!
>>
>> AFAIU by reading the recent discussions, a difficult point is the
>> xdoc format used by Cocoon's internal publishing system.
>>
>> So what about considering xdoc obsolete, remove all the publishing
>> stuff in src/documentation and migrate everything to xhtml which is
>> understood both by Forrest and Daisy? That way, we can concentrate on
>> using the cool features of these modern tools without being always
>> hindered by the legacy structure.
>
>
> That is actually what we have already been doing for the 2.2 efforts.
>
> Question for me is whether we want to carry on on 2.2, or convert the
> 2.1 docs to xhtml/html right now and work on those.
>
> Thoughts?
Let's do it right now.
BTW, apart from file layout and document format, is there any difference
in document _content_ between 2.2 and 2.1?
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://apache.org/~sylvain http://anyware-tech.com
Apache Software Foundation Member Research & Technology Director
Re: Considering xdoc obsolete
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Now that thanks to Steven we have a nice Cocoon-based ASF-hosted CMS, we
> have to (and want to) use it!
>
> AFAIU by reading the recent discussions, a difficult point is the xdoc
> format used by Cocoon's internal publishing system.
>
> So what about considering xdoc obsolete, remove all the publishing stuff
> in src/documentation and migrate everything to xhtml which is understood
> both by Forrest and Daisy? That way, we can concentrate on using the
> cool features of these modern tools without being always hindered by the
> legacy structure.
That is actually what we have already been doing for the 2.2 efforts.
Question for me is whether we want to carry on on 2.2, or convert the
2.1 docs to xhtml/html right now and work on those.
Thoughts?
Regards, Upayavira
Re: Considering xdoc obsolete
Posted by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org>.
Ross Gardler wrote:
> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Now that thanks to Steven we have a nice Cocoon-based ASF-hosted CMS,
>> we have to (and want to) use it!
>>
>> AFAIU by reading the recent discussions, a difficult point is the
>> xdoc format used by Cocoon's internal publishing system.
>>
>> So what about considering xdoc obsolete, remove all the publishing
>> stuff in src/documentation and migrate everything to xhtml which is
>> understood both by Forrest and Daisy?
>
>
> Version 0.8 of Forrest will use a subset of XHTML2 as its internal
> format. Of course, Forrest will accept almost any format as input, so
> you can (theoretically) use anything you want as your source format.
>
> DaisyHTML is not XHTML. It is a limited set of XHTML elements. By
> limited I mean in available elements, not in utility. It removes all
> the "nasty" HTML stuff (mostly presentation related). The significance
> of this is that it is not wise to use an XHTML editor to edit Daisy
> docs offline, some elements will not translate into DaisyHTML.
>
> Nevertheless, for 98% of documents DaisyHTML is great, even edited
> offline with an XHTML editor. For the remaining 2% you can use true XHTML.
That's what I meant. Considering the elements that exist in xdoc
(version 1.0 is used in Cocoon), my impression is that Daisy's XHTML
subset can handle all what we have in xdoc today.
>> That way, we can concentrate on using the cool features of these
>> modern tools without being always hindered by the legacy structure.
>
>
> +1 to the concept as long as you are aware Daisy does not use XHTML.
> The +1 part is I am continuing to work on the Daisy plugin for Forrest.
Great!
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://apache.org/~sylvain http://anyware-tech.com
Apache Software Foundation Member Research & Technology Director
Re: Considering xdoc obsolete
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Now that thanks to Steven we have a nice Cocoon-based ASF-hosted CMS, we
> have to (and want to) use it!
>
> AFAIU by reading the recent discussions, a difficult point is the xdoc
> format used by Cocoon's internal publishing system.
>
> So what about considering xdoc obsolete, remove all the publishing stuff
> in src/documentation and migrate everything to xhtml which is understood
> both by Forrest and Daisy?
Version 0.8 of Forrest will use a subset of XHTML2 as its internal
format. Of course, Forrest will accept almost any format as input, so
you can (theoretically) use anything you want as your source format.
DaisyHTML is not XHTML. It is a limited set of XHTML elements. By
limited I mean in available elements, not in utility. It removes all the
"nasty" HTML stuff (mostly presentation related). The significance of
this is that it is not wise to use an XHTML editor to edit Daisy docs
offline, some elements will not translate into DaisyHTML.
Nevertheless, for 98% of documents DaisyHTML is great, even edited
offline with an XHTML editor. For the remaining 2% you can use true XHTML.
> That way, we can concentrate on using the
> cool features of these modern tools without being always hindered by the
> legacy structure.
+1 to the concept as long as you are aware Daisy does not use XHTML. The
+1 part is I am continuing to work on the Daisy plugin for Forrest.
Ross
Re: Considering xdoc obsolete
Posted by Daniel Fagerstrom <da...@nada.kth.se>.
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Now that thanks to Steven we have a nice Cocoon-based ASF-hosted CMS, we
> have to (and want to) use it!
>
> AFAIU by reading the recent discussions, a difficult point is the xdoc
> format used by Cocoon's internal publishing system.
>
> So what about considering xdoc obsolete, remove all the publishing stuff
> in src/documentation and migrate everything to xhtml which is understood
> both by Forrest and Daisy? That way, we can concentrate on using the
> cool features of these modern tools without being always hindered by the
> legacy structure.
+1 or rather +0 as I don't plan to help ;) XHTML seem like a much better
choice, besides beeing better understod by tools it is better understod
by people as well.
/Daniel