db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kristian Waagan <kristian.waa...@oracle.com>
Subject Re: Copyright clairification for fo2html.xsl in Derby software.
Date Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:37:33 GMT
On 10.01.2012 14:46, Rick Hillegas wrote:
> On 1/9/12 4:36 PM, Myrna van Lunteren wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Andrew 
>> McIntyre<mcintyre.a@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Jean T. 
>>> Anderson<jtanderson@fastmail.fm>  wrote:
>>>> I did some checking and that file has been in the subversion 
>>>> respository
>>>> since April 2005, added in revision 161353 with the log message 
>>>> "Add single
>>>> page HTML output to derby doc build." -- in other words, ever since we
>>>> started using DITA to build the docs, so I expect it to be in all
>>>> distributions starting with 10.1. I'll check with Andrew next week 
>>>> to see if
>>>> he remembers more of the story around this file. Or maybe one of 
>>>> the other
>>>> committers on this list who have tweaked this file can comment?
>>>> In the meantime, while we untangle the story to all our 
>>>> satisfaction, anyone
>>>> who further distributes the derby product should, of course, follow 
>>>> the
>>>> advice of their lawyer. If there's any concern about this file, 
>>>> then one
>>>> option would be to omit the single book HTML file from your 
>>>> distribution --
>>>> perhaps just include the PDF file or link to the single book HTML 
>>>> file on
>>>> the apache site.
>>>> regards,
>>>>   -jean
>>> Hi Jean,
>>> We had been using this file to generate single-page HTML documentation
>>> for test and review during the DITA conversion since before the docs
>>> were contributed to Apache. I checked it in when I was moving the doc
>>> build machinery into Subversion. In retrospect, I probably shouldn't
>>> have checked it in, but when someone went to modify it is when we had
>>> the original discussion. There should at least be an entry for it in
>>> the doc-src NOTICES. I can remove the file if it's a problem though,
>>> as the file could be downloaded directly to the release builder's
>>> machine by Ant. Also, there are other, free options for converting
>>> PDFs to HTML files.
>>> - andrew
>> I think we should probably get rid of this file, and we should really
>> avoid using it altogether. Is there anyone who has the skill to
>> replace this file?
>> Myrna
> I ran a quick experiment: I removed fo2html.xsl and verified that I 
> could build the frames html docs. Here are some solutions listed in 
> declining order of effort:
> 1) Remove fo2html.xsl.
> + Easy.
> - We will lose the no-frames version of the html docs. I do use the 
> no-frames version when citing doc passages in posts to derby-user. 
> That is my only use for the no-frames version. Passage citations would 
> be a little more cumbersome, but I could live with that.
> 2) Track down Nikolai Grigoriev and get him to open source this file 
> under Apache 2.0.
> + Preserves the no-frames version of the docs.
> + Relatively low effort on our part.
> - Unbounded problem. We're not certain that we can track him down or 
> that he would agree to use the Apache 2.0 license.
> 3) Replace fo2html.xsl with an xsl transformation which we write 
> ourselves.
> + Preserves the no-frames version of the docs.
> - Probably outside the current skill sets of our current contributors.
> 4) Convert the docs to another source format.
> + Would be an opportunity to address our dissatisfactions with DITA, 
> including its accessibility problems and our inability to generate a 
> doc index.
> - Big effort.

Throwing in another option, for which I don't know how much effort is 
required (to be honest, I don't even know if it will produce the 
document we are pursuing here):
  5) Use DITA chunking, see [1].

  Based on my little experiment getting the Getting Started guide built 
(as XHTML) with the newest version of the DITA toolkit, I suspect we 
will have to address a few existing problems with our DITA sources. It 
would be good to move up to the most recent version of DITA in any case, 
but I don't know how much havoc that may create for the PDF versions of 
the manuals.

Any DITA experts on the list that can shed some light on this option?


[1] http://docs.oasis-open.org/dita/v1.1/OS/archspec/chunking.html

> Thanks,
> -Rick

View raw message