You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by David Crossley <cr...@indexgeo.com.au> on 2002/01/15 08:06:47 UTC
Re: VOTE: Restructuring FAQ file
I am trying to resurrect this important thread from late
last year (it was around Xmas and there were no replies).
Does anybody know the answer to the mystery of why
the FAQ DTD lost some excellent functionality? See
discussion below. I propose that if nobody knows, then
we should resort to the FAQ document structure of C1.
--David
David Crossley wrote:
>Bernhard Huber wrote:
>> As I examined that faq.xml is not a faq10 DTD valid document
>
>A recent checkin of faq.xml introduced a new simple
>validation error. I have patched and committed that, so
>the faq.xml does now conform to the current faq10 DTD.
>
>> I thought about restructuring the FAQ layout.
>> Looking like this :
>> Question
>> {faq-section-title-1}
>> {question}
>> ...
>> {faq-section-title-2}
>> {question}
>> ....
>> ...
>>
>> I'd like to restructure the documentation/xdocs/faq.xml FAQ file.
>>
>> I'd like to change the faqv10.dtd to faqv11.dtd adding
>> faq-section element like it was in Cocoon1.
>> Doing this I hope to structure the Table of Content displaying
>> all question as single unordered list.
>> Having faq-section will help the reader to find question he
>> or she is interested in more easily.
>
>This is a good idea. However, i reckon that one large FAQ
>will be clumsy and slow to use. It would be better to have
>multiple faq documents, one for each topic. The faqsection
>idea is still useful at the topic level.
>
>However, let us step back a little to ask:
>Why is the faq-v10.dtd (and associated stylesheet) in C2
>different to the faq-v10.dtd in C1? The C1 version has the
>functionality that Bernhard suggests. Whereas the C2 version
>appears to be an even older version of the latest C1 DTD.
>
>Either something was out of sync when C2 was first created,
>or the functionality was deliberately repealed. There is no
>message in CVS to suggest the latter.
>
>> Thus DTD becomes:
>> <!ELEMENT faqs (authors?, (faqsection | faq)+)>
>> <!ATTLIST faqs %common.att;
>> %title.att;>
>>
>> <!ELEMENT faq-section (faq)+>
>> <!ATTLIST faq-section %common.att;
>> %title.att;>
>>
>> <!ELEMENT faq (question, answer)>
>>
>> <!ELEMENT question (%content.mix;)*>
>> <!ATTLIST question %common.att;>
>>
>> <!ELEMENT answer (%blocks;)*>
>> <!ATTLIST answer author IDREF #IMPLIED>
>>
>> Moreover I'd like to classify the current FAQ having following
>> faq-section titles:
>>
>> Building
>> About compiling cocoon sources
>>
>> Configuring
>> About configuring sitemap,
>>
>> Installing
>> About installing cocoon for a servlet engine
>>
>> Startup Troubles
>> Questiong Cocoon does not work
>>
>> Database Troubles
>> About Cocoon and databases
>>
>> Sitemap Troubles
>> About Sitemap setups
>>
>> Misc
>> Anything that does not fit in the above category titles
>
>There was some previous discussion on this topic:
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=99830982412347&w=2
> [PROPOSAL] xdocs/faq.xml needs split into topic-based FAQs
>However, i did not have enough spare time to proceed.
>We obvious need to sort out the mystery of the DTD and
>stylesheet before proceeding.
>--David
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: VOTE: Restructuring FAQ file
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
David Crossley wrote:
>
> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> >David Crossley wrote:
> >> I am trying to resurrect this important thread from late
> >> last year (it was around Xmas and there were no replies).
> >>
> >> Does anybody know the answer to the mystery of why
> >> the FAQ DTD lost some excellent functionality? See
> >> discussion below. I propose that if nobody knows, then
> >> we should resort to the FAQ document structure of C1.
> >
> >David,
> >
> >I'm currently cleaning up the v1.0 DTDs and making a v1.1 version to
> >place in Forrest (we'll be probably be starting a full-blown xml.apache
> >subproject soon).
> >
> >I'll be very happy to integrate any suggestion.
>
> Your initial DTDs have been excellent. I look forward to
> your next efforts.
thanks.
> At the moment the only issue is why the DTD for FAQ took
> a retrograde step.
ok
> >As for the Documentation vs. Docbook DTD, I'd love to provide choice
> >instead of wasting tons of emails to convince people why one DTD is
> >better than another.
>
> The Catalog Entity Resolver will allow us to easily manage
> various versions of DTDs. If you need any help with configuring
> the catalog, then please ask.
I already did, but I'll be very open to suggestion.
> >DTDs are like OS or text editors: highly subjective to personal taste.
> >
> >At the same time, it's fairly easy to transform Documentation DTD into
> >Docbook DTD
>
> Yes, one of the obvious benefits of having valid documents
> to start with.
>
> >so I plan to do:
> >
> > light semantic markup -> full semantic markup -> presentation markup
> >
> >where
> >
> > light content DTD -> Documentation v1.1 (and friends)
> > full content DTD -> Docbook (latest)
> > presentation DTD -> XHTML, XSL:FO (rendered as PDF) and SVG (rendered
> >as PNG)
> >
> >What do you think?
>
> This sounds a good approach to me. However, i am
> unclear as to which DTD the actual xdocs/*.xml will use
> (i presume document-v11.dtd).
I'll write a small stylesheet to convert document-v10 to document-v11
and also the old stylebook DTD to document-v11 for the other xml.apache
projects and unify the DTDs.
What do you think?
--
Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be
able to give birth to a dancing star.
<st...@apache.org> Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: VOTE: Restructuring FAQ file
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@indexgeo.com.au>.
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>David Crossley wrote:
>> I am trying to resurrect this important thread from late
>> last year (it was around Xmas and there were no replies).
>>
>> Does anybody know the answer to the mystery of why
>> the FAQ DTD lost some excellent functionality? See
>> discussion below. I propose that if nobody knows, then
>> we should resort to the FAQ document structure of C1.
>
>David,
>
>I'm currently cleaning up the v1.0 DTDs and making a v1.1 version to
>place in Forrest (we'll be probably be starting a full-blown xml.apache
>subproject soon).
>
>I'll be very happy to integrate any suggestion.
Your initial DTDs have been excellent. I look forward to
your next efforts.
At the moment the only issue is why the DTD for FAQ took
a retrograde step.
>As for the Documentation vs. Docbook DTD, I'd love to provide choice
>instead of wasting tons of emails to convince people why one DTD is
>better than another.
The Catalog Entity Resolver will allow us to easily manage
various versions of DTDs. If you need any help with configuring
the catalog, then please ask.
>DTDs are like OS or text editors: highly subjective to personal taste.
>
>At the same time, it's fairly easy to transform Documentation DTD into
>Docbook DTD
Yes, one of the obvious benefits of having valid documents
to start with.
>so I plan to do:
>
> light semantic markup -> full semantic markup -> presentation markup
>
>where
>
> light content DTD -> Documentation v1.1 (and friends)
> full content DTD -> Docbook (latest)
> presentation DTD -> XHTML, XSL:FO (rendered as PDF) and SVG (rendered
>as PNG)
>
>What do you think?
This sounds a good approach to me. However, i am
unclear as to which DTD the actual xdocs/*.xml will use
(i presume document-v11.dtd).
--David
>--
>Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be
> able to give birth to a dancing star.
><st...@apache.org> Friedrich Nietzsche
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: VOTE: Restructuring FAQ file
Posted by giacomo <gi...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> >
<snip/>
> > Does anybody know the answer to the mystery of why
> > the FAQ DTD lost some excellent functionality? See
> > discussion below. I propose that if nobody knows, then
> > we should resort to the FAQ document structure of C1.
>
> David,
>
> DTDs are like OS or text editors: highly subjective to personal taste.
:-)
> At the same time, it's fairly easy to transform Documentation DTD into
> Docbook DTD so I plan to do:
Avalon already does so. We can borrow those XSLTs to do so.
> light semantic markup -> full semantic markup -> presentation markup
>
> where
>
> light content DTD -> Documentation v1.1 (and friends)
> full content DTD -> Docbook (latest)
> presentation DTD -> XHTML, XSL:FO (rendered as PDF) and SVG (rendered
> as PNG)
>
> What do you think?
Make sense to me.
Giacomo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: VOTE: Restructuring FAQ file
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
David Crossley wrote:
>
> I am trying to resurrect this important thread from late
> last year (it was around Xmas and there were no replies).
>
> Does anybody know the answer to the mystery of why
> the FAQ DTD lost some excellent functionality? See
> discussion below. I propose that if nobody knows, then
> we should resort to the FAQ document structure of C1.
David,
I'm currently cleaning up the v1.0 DTDs and making a v1.1 version to
place in Forrest (we'll be probably be starting a full-blown xml.apache
subproject soon).
I'll be very happy to integrate any suggestion.
As for the Documentation vs. Docbook DTD, I'd love to provide choice
instead of wasting tons of emails to convince people why one DTD is
better than another.
DTDs are like OS or text editors: highly subjective to personal taste.
At the same time, it's fairly easy to transform Documentation DTD into
Docbook DTD so I plan to do:
light semantic markup -> full semantic markup -> presentation markup
where
light content DTD -> Documentation v1.1 (and friends)
full content DTD -> Docbook (latest)
presentation DTD -> XHTML, XSL:FO (rendered as PDF) and SVG (rendered
as PNG)
What do you think?
--
Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be
able to give birth to a dancing star.
<st...@apache.org> Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
RE: VOTE: Restructuring FAQ file
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@verizon.net>.
> From: David Crossley [mailto:crossley@indexgeo.com.au]
>
> I am trying to resurrect this important thread from late
> last year (it was around Xmas and there were no replies).
>
> Does anybody know the answer to the mystery of why
> the FAQ DTD lost some excellent functionality? See
> discussion below. I propose that if nobody knows, then
> we should resort to the FAQ document structure of C1.
I agree; flat FAQ isn't the way to go. +1.
<snip>
> >There was some previous discussion on this topic:
> > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=99830982412347&w=2
> > [PROPOSAL] xdocs/faq.xml needs split into topic-based FAQs
> >However, i did not have enough spare time to proceed.
> >We obvious need to sort out the mystery of the DTD and
> >stylesheet before proceeding.
> >--David
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org