Return-Path: 
 <forrest-dev-return-4404-apmail-xml-forrest-dev-archive=xml.apache.org@xml.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-xml-forrest-dev-archive@xml.apache.org
Received: (qmail 50462 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jan 2003 12:15:31 -0000
Mailing-List: contact forrest-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
list-help: <mailto:forrest-dev-help@xml.apache.org>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:forrest-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org>
list-post: <mailto:forrest-dev@xml.apache.org>
Reply-To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
Received: (qmail 50453 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2003 12:15:31 -0000
Received: from otsrv1.iic.rug.ac.be (157.193.121.51)
  by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Jan 2003 12:15:31 -0000
Received: from otsrv1.iic.rug.ac.be (otsrv1.iic.rug.ac.be [157.193.121.51])
	by otsrv1.iic.rug.ac.be (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h04CFXH09473
	for <forrest-dev@xml.apache.org>; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 13:15:33 +0100
Message-ID: <3E16D026.4090802@outerthought.org>
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 13:14:30 +0100
From: Steven Noels <stevenn@outerthought.org>
Organization: Outerthought
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
	rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: Standard DTD   (was Re: [VOTE] FakeForrest is ready!)
References: <ADECJLDNBFNBOJBLKCMOOEIADOAA.rob@koberg.com>
	<3E16C66B.9010608@geekspeak.org> <3E16CD65.9090608@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <3E16CD65.9090608@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
To: 
To: 
X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N

Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:

> I think that we should embrace a standard instead of continuing on our 
> own DTD.

Support rather than embrace maybe.

I just had a quick look at sdocbook - would it be a candidate for a 
mid-tier format?

> Reasons:
>  - editors: standards have editors that users can really use to
>             edit our docs
>  - users: users know standard DTDs already, but have to take some time
>           to learn ours.
>  - interoperability: using a standard DTD makes it easy for other tools
>                      to output to that DTD for us or viceversa
> 
> I had proposed XHTML 2 as a base for our new DTD; and also did a 
> comparison. Nothing followed.
> If someone wants to go forward with it, here's the link; in the middle 
> there is a tag-per-tag comparison:
> 
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=102909917505608&w=2

XHTML2 is under lots of pressure IIRC. Too much, too soon.

What we could do is having such a setup:

    ENTRY               MID-TIER

   xdocs       CAP      sdocbook    skin       xsl-fo
   sdocbook   ---->        or       ---->      (x)html
   xhtml2?               xhtml2                rss
   status
   ...

What do you think?

</Steven>
-- 
Steven Noels                            http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at            http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/
stevenn at outerthought.org                stevenn at apache.org