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 2005/01/01 12:15:35 UTC
[Proposal] HTML as base Forrest format
I would propose that we clearly state that HTML is the preferred source
format for Forrest sites, and remove xdocs from the site template.
This seems a bit backwards with the XHTML2 stuff, but I don't think so.
The important thing is that (X)HTML(1|2) is used as a source format, so
that many editors can be used and impedence on Forrest usage is
minimized. The internals of Forrest are not generally known by users.
This can also make it easier for us to do a step towards XHTML2, as we
will need to put in the HTML handling the same things that will go in
the 2 version.
WDOT?
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: [Proposal] HTML as base Forrest format
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Mark Eggers wrote:
> I'm just a long-time reader of the dev mailing list,
> so I don't know if my comments are appropriate.
Yes, comments from anyone who reads this dev list are
appropriate. Even when we are actually voting on something,
then your vote is also appropriate. In the final analysis,
the votes of the Forrest Project Management Committee
are the only ones that count.
Here is a snippet from our draft guidelines ...
------
All participants in the project are encouraged to show their
preference for a particular action by voting. When the votes are
tallied, only the votes of PMC members are binding. Non-binding
votes are still useful to enable everyone to understand the
perception of an action by the wider community.
------
--David
Re: [Proposal] HTML as base Forrest format
Posted by Mark Eggers <it...@yahoo.com>.
On Tue, 2005-01-04 at 09:15 +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> We should also suggest a list of correct XHTML1.x editors.
>
> Suggestions?
>
> PS: Emacs, vi, jedit, notepad, etc are not the editors I'm talking about
This may be too far afield for the developer list. What are your use
cases for a nontechnical xml / xhtml 1.x editor? There are some that
use xsl to allow a more WYSIWYG editing mode. Configuring them to work
nicely with Forrest may be a challenge, however.
-----
/mde/
just my two cents . . . .
Re: [Proposal] HTML as base Forrest format
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Juan Jose Pablos wrote:
...
> if you want to use html as
> source that is fine. But suggesting people to use html is backwards...
...
> can we use xhtml editors instead?
...
> That HTML should be deprecated in favor of xhtml and this move is not
> helping a bit.
Making docs difficult to edit by using xml is not helping Forrest. We
must support content from reasonably widespread editors.
From your post, and from Ross's comments, I gather that this could be a
possible alternative route:
Deprecate xdocs as a source format suggesting to use XHTML1.x instead.
We should also suggest a list of correct XHTML1.x editors.
Suggestions?
PS: Emacs, vi, jedit, notepad, etc are not the editors I'm talking about
:-)
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: [Proposal] HTML as base Forrest format
Posted by Mark Eggers <it...@yahoo.com>.
On Mon, 2005-01-03 at 22:03 -0600, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> On Lun, 3 de Enero de 2005, 18:47, Ross Gardler dijo:
> I would therefore like to add my support to the suggestion (from David I
> > think) that we simply change the documentation to make it clear that
> > HTML and XHTML are suitable input formats whilst also identifying the
> > more rigid formats available. The HTMLArea plugin can be used to make
> > the barrier to entry for new users very low.
>
I think that this is a good idea as well.
-----
/mde/
just my two cents . . . .
Re: [Proposal] HTML as base Forrest format
Posted by Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org>.
El mié, 05-01-2005 a las 09:52, Nicola Ken Barozzi escribió:
> Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> ...
> > Forrest is about free choice of input/output formats. Just manifest that
> > in the docu and that's it.
>
> What do *we* support as an input format?
>
> If we keep using xdocs ourselves, users will tend to use those, as they
> will feel more "safe", it's the Forrest "standard".
>
> IMHO supporting an XHTML input format and using it extensively in our
> documentation and example site would be beneficial... maybe I'm not
> geeky enough to feel the breeze of hand-crafted xml...
:)
LOL
+1 to use different input format in our fresh site.
Inout format (in fresh site):
-xdocs
-html4
-xhtml1.x
-oo
-docbook
-custom xml
-...
--
thorsten
"Together we stand, divided we fall!"
Hey you (Pink Floyd)
Re: [Proposal] HTML as base Forrest format
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
...
> Forrest is about free choice of input/output formats. Just manifest that
> in the docu and that's it.
What do *we* support as an input format?
If we keep using xdocs ourselves, users will tend to use those, as they
will feel more "safe", it's the Forrest "standard".
IMHO supporting an XHTML input format and using it extensively in our
documentation and example site would be beneficial... maybe I'm not
geeky enough to feel the breeze of hand-crafted xml...
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: [Proposal] HTML as base Forrest format
Posted by Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org>.
El mar, 04-01-2005 a las 05:03, Antonio Gallardo escribió:
> On Lun, 3 de Enero de 2005, 18:47, Ross Gardler dijo:
> I would therefore like to add my support to the suggestion (from David I
> > think) that we simply change the documentation to make it clear that
> > HTML and XHTML are suitable input formats whilst also identifying the
> > more rigid formats available. The HTMLArea plugin can be used to make
> > the barrier to entry for new users very low.
>
> +1
>
> That sounds better! :-D
+1
"...project can choose to use XDocs, OpenOffice.org Writer, XHTML,
Docbook or any other support format." (Ross G.)
That is the point, we should not limit the format (html4) but extend
them. ;-)
If Nicola wants to go with html4, go for it, mate. I will use xdocs till
I change to xhtml2. ;-)
Forrest is about free choice of input/output formats. Just manifest that
in the docu and that's it.
--
thorsten
"Together we stand, divided we fall!"
Hey you (Pink Floyd)
Re: [Proposal] HTML as base Forrest format
Posted by Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net>.
On Lun, 3 de Enero de 2005, 18:47, Ross Gardler dijo:
I would therefore like to add my support to the suggestion (from David I
> think) that we simply change the documentation to make it clear that
> HTML and XHTML are suitable input formats whilst also identifying the
> more rigid formats available. The HTMLArea plugin can be used to make
> the barrier to entry for new users very low.
+1
That sounds better! :-D
WTOT?
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo
Re: [Proposal] HTML as base Forrest format
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
Mark Eggers wrote:
> I'm just a long-time reader of the dev mailing list,
> so I don't know if my comments are appropriate.
All comments from all people with an opinion are appropriate, discussion
is the only way to ensure we avoid problems.
> -1 since it removes document content structure. This
> lack of structure will make skinning and
> transformations much more complex.
This is true, to an extent. Forrest already supports HTML as an input
format and it is well supported (i.e the transformations already work).
However, our docs lead users to the conclusion that they *should* use
XDoc and avoid HTML. This makes it difficult for users to get started if
they are not already set-up with an XML editor.
If a project requires a valid and well formed input format then that
project can choose to use XDocs, OpenOffice.org Writer, XHTML, Docbook
or any other support format. Such a project will already have a develop
who is XML aware and has access to an XML editor.
You are not the first person to voice concerns along these lines though.
I would therefore like to add my support to the suggestion (from David I
think) that we simply change the documentation to make it clear that
HTML and XHTML are suitable input formats whilst also identifying the
more rigid formats available. The HTMLArea plugin can be used to make
the barrier to entry for new users very low.
>>>From the welcome:
>
> Apache Forrest is an XML standards-oriented
> documentation framework based upon Apache Cocoon,
> providing XSLT stylesheets and schemas, images and
> other resources. Forrest uses these to render the
> source content into a website via command-line, robot,
> or dynamic application.
Internally, everything will still be XML standards-oriented so I don't
think this proposal contradicts this statement.
Ross
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 03/01/2005
Re: [Proposal] HTML as base Forrest format
Posted by Mark Eggers <it...@yahoo.com>.
I'm just a long-time reader of the dev mailing list,
so I don't know if my comments are appropriate.
However:
-1 since it removes document content structure. This
lack of structure will make skinning and
transformations much more complex.
>From the welcome:
Apache Forrest is an XML standards-oriented
documentation framework based upon Apache Cocoon,
providing XSLT stylesheets and schemas, images and
other resources. Forrest uses these to render the
source content into a website via command-line, robot,
or dynamic application.
/mde/
just my two cents . . . .
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Send a seasonal email greeting and help others. Do good.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
Re: [Proposal] HTML as base Forrest format
Posted by Juan Jose Pablos <ch...@apache.org>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
> I would propose that we clearly state that HTML is the preferred
> source format for Forrest sites, and remove xdocs from the site template.
>
> This seems a bit backwards with the XHTML2 stuff, but I don't think so.
>
I am on -1 on this. Forrest is about XML, if you want to use html as
source that is fine. But suggesting people to use html is backwards...
> The important thing is that (X)HTML(1|2) is used as a source format,
> so that many editors can be used and impedence on Forrest usage is
> minimized. The internals of Forrest are not generally known by users.
>
fine, but can we use xhtml editors instead?
> This can also make it easier for us to do a step towards XHTML2, as we
> will need to put in the HTML handling the same things that will go in
> the 2 version.
>
> WDOT?
>
That HTML should be deprecated in favor of xhtml and this move is not
helping a bit.
Re: [Proposal] HTML as base Forrest format
Posted by Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net>.
On Sab, 1 de Enero de 2005, 5:15, Nicola Ken Barozzi dijo:
>
> I would propose that we clearly state that HTML is the preferred source
> format for Forrest sites, and remove xdocs from the site template.
>
> This seems a bit backwards with the XHTML2 stuff, but I don't think so.
>
> The important thing is that (X)HTML(1|2) is used as a source format, so
> that many editors can be used and impedence on Forrest usage is
> minimized. The internals of Forrest are not generally known by users.
>
> This can also make it easier for us to do a step towards XHTML2, as we
> will need to put in the HTML handling the same things that will go in
> the 2 version.
>
> WDOT?
To be honest, I am OK with the current forrest formats too.
But I see the proposal fair enough: Our own DTDs are stripped-down
versions of HTML. I guess pursuing a HTML conformance will allow users to
take advantage of tools as Quanta et al. As you told, this will encourage
more the Forrest usage. Can be percieved as tear down the forrest
entry-level for newbies. And IMO, that is good. ;-)
Another posibility is to update our DTD's and write docs of how they can
enable application X to check forrest syntax.
As I said often, my wife is a content writer. She is very happy with the
current forrest formats too.
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo.
Re: [Proposal] HTML as base Forrest format
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
David Crossley wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>>[snip]
>>I intend HTML4 and XHTML1.1, with HTML4 *preferred*, as it facilitates
>>usage. "Be forgiving in what you accept, be strict in what you deliver".
>
> Why do we need to "prefer"? We could just say which input formats are
> available and have a document which list the pros and cons.
People now approach Forrest thinking that they should write the docs in
xdoc.
I want them to think that they should write the docs in plain HTML,
whatever their editor provides.
>>[snip]
>>Actually I'm only talking about the SOURCE format.
>>
>>The proposal is simply to deprecate the xdoc format as an *input*
>>format, and concentrate on HTML4 and XHTML1.x for the _source_.
>
> Earlier in this thread you used this expression: (X)HTML(1|2)
> When it comes time for a vote, then it should be explicit.
What you have cited above is what I intend.
> We would need to deprecate the xdoc input format over a long period
> or provide a special build target to convert from xdocs.
Yes, the plain-dev skin already works quite well.
> I gather that it has always been the plan to evolve the "xdocs" format
> to XHTML2 anyway. So i am just seeing this proposal as being in line
> with that.
That's the idea.
> My concerns are the "prefer" issue above, and understanding how
> we do FAQs and HOWTOs and CHANGES without having the xdocs to control
> the structure.
Exactly my point: ATM users cannot use html to do all that they do with
xdoc. By concentrating all our efforts towards html input, we will be
forced to put that functionality there. Hence the *preferred* format.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: [Proposal] HTML as base Forrest format
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> [snip]
> I intend HTML4 and XHTML1.1, with HTML4 *preferred*, as it facilitates
> usage. "Be forgiving in what you accept, be strict in what you deliver".
Why do we need to "prefer"? We could just say which input formats are
available and have a document which list the pros and cons.
> [snip]
> Actually I'm only talking about the SOURCE format.
>
> The proposal is simply to deprecate the xdoc format as an *input*
> format, and concentrate on HTML4 and XHTML1.x for the _source_.
Earlier in this thread you used this expression: (X)HTML(1|2)
When it comes time for a vote, then it should be explicit.
We would need to deprecate the xdoc input format over a long period
or provide a special build target to convert from xdocs.
I gather that it has always been the plan to evolve the "xdocs" format
to XHTML2 anyway. So i am just seeing this proposal as being in line
with that.
My concerns are the "prefer" issue above, and understanding how
we do FAQs and HOWTOs and CHANGES without having the xdocs to control
the structure.
--David
Re: [Proposal] HTML as base Forrest format
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> El dom, 02-01-2005 a las 16:15, Ross Gardler escribió:
>
>>Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>
>>>The proposal is simply to deprecate the xdoc format as an *input*
>>>format, and concentrate on HTML4 and XHTML1.x for the _source_.
>>
>>Ok, I'm still +1 as it is still an intermediate step to XHTML as an
>>internal format (one of your original points I think).
>>
>>Your further point of "Be forgiving in what you accept, be strict in
>>what you deliver" seems to work alongside my point of using JTidy to fix
>>bad HTML to allow Forrest to work with it:
>>
>>HTML --> XDoc --> Output
>>
>>...
>>
>>Thorsten, does you -1 still stand given Nicola's clarification.
>
>
> Yeah, -1 on HTML4 as official intermediate input format. -+0 on
> xhtml1.x.
HTML is being proposed as the source format *not* the intermediate. Are
you still -1?
This proposal does not affect the move to XHTML 2 as an internal format
(see http://issues.cocoondev.org/browse/FOR-184 )
Internally we will continue to use XDoc (and later XHTML2).
If any individual project requires a stricter input format it can
continue to use whatever input format it needs as is the case now.
Ross
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.7 - Release Date: 30/12/2004
Re: [Proposal] HTML as base Forrest format
Posted by Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org>.
El dom, 02-01-2005 a las 16:15, Ross Gardler escribió:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> > The proposal is simply to deprecate the xdoc format as an *input*
> > format, and concentrate on HTML4 and XHTML1.x for the _source_.
>
> Ok, I'm still +1 as it is still an intermediate step to XHTML as an
> internal format (one of your original points I think).
>
> Your further point of "Be forgiving in what you accept, be strict in
> what you deliver" seems to work alongside my point of using JTidy to fix
> bad HTML to allow Forrest to work with it:
>
> HTML --> XDoc --> Output
>
> ...
>
> Thorsten, does you -1 still stand given Nicola's clarification.
Yeah, -1 on HTML4 as official intermediate input format. -+0 on
xhtml1.x.
If we deprecate xdoc, IMO the *official* internal source should be
xhtml2 (without any other intermediate solutions).
I do not want to say that we should not support html4 nor xhtml1 as
input format (of course we will) but I personally do not want to use it
as official intermediate internal source.
I guess if we want to reach forrest 1.0 we should do it with future
standards and not officially supporting "a dead language (html4)". BTW
the same is true for xslt, xpath,...
I personally see the pipe like:
(x)html or whatever input format (OO, inx, ..)/ -> xhtml2 (no xdocs) ->
output
--
thorsten
"Together we stand, divided we fall!"
Hey you (Pink Floyd)
Re: [Proposal] HTML as base Forrest format
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Ross Gardler wrote:
>
...
> The proposal is simply to deprecate the xdoc format as an *input*
> format, and concentrate on HTML4 and XHTML1.x for the _source_.
Ok, I'm still +1 as it is still an intermediate step to XHTML as an
internal format (one of your original points I think).
Your further point of "Be forgiving in what you accept, be strict in
what you deliver" seems to work alongside my point of using JTidy to fix
bad HTML to allow Forrest to work with it:
HTML --> XDoc --> Output
This is already supported and works pretty well. As I mentioned earlier,
we are succesfully using it at Burrokeet as the preferred input format
(around 600 pages of course materials and growing rapidly). There are
some tweaks to the stylesheet needed to provide a more complete support
for HTML, but the basic functionality is there and usable, it is only a
documentation change really.
Thorsten, does you -1 still stand given Nicola's clarification.
Ross
Re: [Proposal] HTML as base Forrest format
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Ross Gardler wrote:
> Thorsten Scherler wrote:
>
>> El sáb, 01-01-2005 a las 14:47, Ross Gardler escribió:
>>
>>> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would propose that we clearly state that HTML is the preferred
>>>> source format for Forrest sites, and remove xdocs from the site
>>>> template.
...
>>>> The important thing is that (X)HTML(1|2) is used as a source format,
>>>> so that many editors can be used and impedence on Forrest usage is
>>>> minimized. The internals of Forrest are not generally known by users.
...
>> If we give up xdocs, then we have to use XHTML (1|2).
>> -1 on HTML.
>>
>> We need a valid input format and I have seen too many editors that
>> produces screwed up invalid html.
This argument does not stand IMHO. We don't need a perfect input format,
but just a usable one. And I have seen at least as many other editors
that produce workable html. OpenOffice for one, or Mozilla Composer.
> Good point, although I have to admit I was meaning XHTML and ad assumed
> Nicola Ken was also meaning XHTML. However, this certainly needs
> clearing up.
I intend HTML4 and XHTML1.1, with HTML4 *preferred*, as it facilitates
usage. "Be forgiving in what you accept, be strict in what you deliver".
> Using Jtidy HTML input is easily converted to XHTML, so my point about
> HTMLEditor and stylesheets for things like docbook assume we will be using:
>
> html -> XHTML -> output format
>
> In the short term (i.e. before we move to XHTML as the intermediate
> format) this would be:
>
> html -> XHTML -> XDoc -> output format
Actually I'm only talking about the SOURCE format.
The proposal is simply to deprecate the xdoc format as an *input*
format, and concentrate on HTML4 and XHTML1.x for the _source_.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: [Proposal] HTML as base Forrest format
Posted by Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org>.
El sáb, 01-01-2005 a las 18:29, Ross Gardler escribió:
<snip/>
> In the short term (i.e. before we move to XHTML as the intermediate
> format) this would be:
>
> html -> XHTML -> XDoc -> output format
I reckon there should be no short term solution. If we give up xdocs
then xhtml *should* be the intermediate format.
...and I would rather go for 2 then 1, I hate to do a work two times.
;-)
--
thorsten
"Together we stand, divided we fall!"
Hey you (Pink Floyd)
Re: [Proposal] HTML as base Forrest format
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> El sáb, 01-01-2005 a las 14:47, Ross Gardler escribió:
>
>>Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>>
>>>I would propose that we clearly state that HTML is the preferred source
>>>format for Forrest sites, and remove xdocs from the site template.
>>>
>>>This seems a bit backwards with the XHTML2 stuff, but I don't think so.
>>>
>>>The important thing is that (X)HTML(1|2) is used as a source format, so
>>>that many editors can be used and impedence on Forrest usage is
>>>minimized. The internals of Forrest are not generally known by users.
>>>
>>>This can also make it easier for us to do a step towards XHTML2, as we
>>>will need to put in the HTML handling the same things that will go in
>>>the 2 version.
>>>
>>>WDOT?
>>
>>I am +1 for this, the main reasoning for my arguments are:
>>
>>- all of the Nicola's observations above
>>
>>- further work on the HTMLEditor plugin will provide in browser WYSIWYG
>>editing under forrest run or a webapp (I intend to do this work in
>>February, if it hasn't already been done)
>>
>>- over at Burrokeet we are already using HTML as the base format, and it
>>works well. There are a couple of things with the HTML2doc stylesheet
>>that need ironing out, but nothing major.
>>
>>- it will provide a clearer route to integrating things like the Docbook
>>stylesheets (which output HTML)
>>Ross
>
>
> If we give up xdocs, then we have to use XHTML (1|2).
>
> -1 on HTML.
>
> We need a valid input format and I have seen too many editors that
> produces screwed up invalid html.
Good point, although I have to admit I was meaning XHTML and ad assumed
Nicola Ken was also meaning XHTML. However, this certainly needs
clearing up.
Using Jtidy HTML input is easily converted to XHTML, so my point about
HTMLEditor and stylesheets for things like docbook assume we will be using:
html -> XHTML -> output format
In the short term (i.e. before we move to XHTML as the intermediate
format) this would be:
html -> XHTML -> XDoc -> output format
Ross
Re: [Proposal] HTML as base Forrest format
Posted by Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org>.
El sáb, 01-01-2005 a las 14:47, Ross Gardler escribió:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> >
> > I would propose that we clearly state that HTML is the preferred source
> > format for Forrest sites, and remove xdocs from the site template.
> >
> > This seems a bit backwards with the XHTML2 stuff, but I don't think so.
> >
> > The important thing is that (X)HTML(1|2) is used as a source format, so
> > that many editors can be used and impedence on Forrest usage is
> > minimized. The internals of Forrest are not generally known by users.
> >
> > This can also make it easier for us to do a step towards XHTML2, as we
> > will need to put in the HTML handling the same things that will go in
> > the 2 version.
> >
> > WDOT?
>
> I am +1 for this, the main reasoning for my arguments are:
>
> - all of the Nicola's observations above
>
> - further work on the HTMLEditor plugin will provide in browser WYSIWYG
> editing under forrest run or a webapp (I intend to do this work in
> February, if it hasn't already been done)
>
> - over at Burrokeet we are already using HTML as the base format, and it
> works well. There are a couple of things with the HTML2doc stylesheet
> that need ironing out, but nothing major.
>
> - it will provide a clearer route to integrating things like the Docbook
> stylesheets (which output HTML)
> Ross
If we give up xdocs, then we have to use XHTML (1|2).
-1 on HTML.
We need a valid input format and I have seen too many editors that
produces screwed up invalid html.
--
thorsten
"Together we stand, divided we fall!"
Hey you (Pink Floyd)
Re: [Proposal] HTML as base Forrest format
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
> I would propose that we clearly state that HTML is the preferred source
> format for Forrest sites, and remove xdocs from the site template.
>
> This seems a bit backwards with the XHTML2 stuff, but I don't think so.
>
> The important thing is that (X)HTML(1|2) is used as a source format, so
> that many editors can be used and impedence on Forrest usage is
> minimized. The internals of Forrest are not generally known by users.
>
> This can also make it easier for us to do a step towards XHTML2, as we
> will need to put in the HTML handling the same things that will go in
> the 2 version.
>
> WDOT?
I am +1 for this, the main reasoning for my arguments are:
- all of the Nicola's observations above
- further work on the HTMLEditor plugin will provide in browser WYSIWYG
editing under forrest run or a webapp (I intend to do this work in
February, if it hasn't already been done)
- over at Burrokeet we are already using HTML as the base format, and it
works well. There are a couple of things with the HTML2doc stylesheet
that need ironing out, but nothing major.
- it will provide a clearer route to integrating things like the Docbook
stylesheets (which output HTML)
Ross