forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Piroumian Konstantin <KPiroum...@protek.com>
Subject RE: doctype questions
Date Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:32:33 GMT
> From: Ian Atkin [mailto:ianatkin@blueyonder.co.uk] 
> 
>   no docbook/document flame war please, i've scanned some of the 
> archived threads and am just trying to fathom what's going on
> 
> i've got an idea forming but i need some answers before it's 
> coherent/relevant

I'll try to answer:

> 
> many doctypes from many projects, are forrest ones considered "gospel"
> - a couple have 'cocoon' in their name, who "own" these 
> forrest or cocoon?

I suspect that cocoon files were added for migration purposes and they will
be removed when v11 DTDs are finalized.

> - does forrest have to keep up with other projects, or the 
> other way round?

This question is a little out of my competence. Forrest should be flexible
enough to meet the needs of other projects, but not "everything for
everyone" (C) Steven. 

> 
> should user's of forrest be forced into using <document> et al?
> - if users are to have no other option than what forrest 
> provides, i'd 
> want a damn good reason if I was them

It's more a political question. We can't force anybody to use Forrest, but
should provide enough good reasons to convience people to use Forrest.

> - couldn't forrest come with a few markups, one of which is 
> "prefered" 
> or "approved"
> - shouldn't users be allowed to use what they want (mainly 
> thinking of 
> non-apache uses of forrest here)?

Users can edit the sitemaps and customize the build for their needs. But why
they would need Forrest in that case?

> 
> should it be possible to use different markup mechanisms?
> - do we have to use doctypes for validity (they are crap after all)? 
> what about xml schema, relax, xpath (eg schematron)?

Look in mail archives, there were a long discussion on this. I hope that
someday we'll use something better thatn DTDs.

> - is there any benefit in splitting "author-time" validity 
> from "build 
> time" validity, as in documenters use what they like when they write, 
> but forrest uses it's "prefered" mechanisms when it runs 
> (dynamic or static)

Sorry, lost you here.

> 
> should different documents within a project/site be allowed to use 
> different doctypes or should they all use the same one?
> - would make contrib of authors with different preferences much easier
> - processing would leap in complexity, but that may be a cheap price 
> considering a happy family as a result

There will be/are automounted directories where projects can have customized
sitemaps and content.

> 
> does forrest sitemap have to be monolithic?

Does not. This was discussed recently and will be changed as time allows.
Help is appreciated.

> - i know about cocoon's sub-sitemap feature, want to know if there's 
> good reason not to use it

No reasons already.

> - the mapping of xml file to xslt script occurs here
> - can do stuff without affecting existing sitemap but it will 
> be an ugly 
> hack

Again don't get the second point. Can you elaborate?

> 
> does the "live" forrest have to be all dynamic or all static?

It's static on xml.apache.org cause there is no running servlet container on
the host. Dynamic version is available at: http://krysalis.org .

> - mainly thinking of pure docbook generation, which may always be too 
> much for java-based xslt (i've recently started using xsltproc due to 
> the speed grief of large docs)

Yup.

Let's see what others think on this all.

Konstantin

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message