[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: experimental release of linuxdoc-tools (based on sgml-tools 1.0.9)
"Greg Ferguson" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On May 17, 10:43am, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> > Um, I don't think linuxdoc *has* a DTD or DSSSL files.
> Right. I have seen a DTD, but no DSSSL.
Oh, my bad. Of course it has a DTD. Brain fart.
> > OTOH, SGMLtools Lite or whatever *could* support sgmltools v1 or
> > linuxdoc tools or whatever it is called. Supposing that software is
> > already installed, all it would have to do is provide the capability
> > to wrap around the linuxdoc scripts with it's own 'sgmltools' wrapper.
> > If anyone wants to do this, apply as a developer at sourceforge.
> I might be over-simplifying things, but I do not believe
> that will be necessary. I wouldn't want to see that, I think it
> adds too much complexity.
I don't think it would be very complex -- esp. when compared to the
complexity of invoking jade.
The question is what are you trying to accomplish:
- have one front-end for popular free software SGML/XML authoring
- eliminate the old pre-DSSSL linuxdoc styling because it's hard to
If the former, my approach is the *easiest*. If the latter, your
approach is best. In fact, one could do both...
> > I approve of one tool which is extensible -- it's name is sgmltools
> > lite, now a days. I object to the idea of merging the linuxdoc
> > perl/ASP or whatever it is back into the sgmltools lite package.
> We are in agreement.
> I certainly do not want to have to merge the (old) scripts into the
> new package and I don't believe that would be necessary. I do not
> believe this v1 / v2 discrepency is necessary, it causes confusion;
> and beyond Taketoshi, there does not appear to be too many others
> still working on v1 (linuxdoc) support.
> I believe we need to simply nail down a DTD and DSSSL package for
> linuxdoc...same model as what is done w/DocBook.
That's certainly doable. DSSSL expertise seems rather hard to find,
> Again, I might be over-simplifying this, and that is why I brought
> it up for discussion. The linuxdoc DTD is not too complex, so it
> may not take a huge effort to do this.
> If we can:
> 1) Produce a *maintained* package comprised of the linuxdoc DTD
> and linuxdoc DSSSL stylesheets
> 2) Fold that package into SGMLtools Lite (and/or SGMLtools v2)
BTW, I believe SGMLtools v2 is dead in favor of SGMLtools lite.
> 3) Make the existing wrapper scripts "DTD-aware" (if this is necessary),
> then I believe we'd be in great shape from a tools perspective wrt
> linuxdoc support.
Well, I would suggest that the best approach would be to see if you
can continue to refine the existing linuxdoc->docbook transformation
stylesheet which is currently in SGMLtools lite. Then it might not be
too hard to have a two step process (which would be hidden to
- convert linuxdoc document to docbook
- style docbook document normally
.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org