forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <>
Subject Re: Where is Docbook support going?
Date Fri, 03 Oct 2003 15:07:43 GMT
Juan Jose Pablos wrote:

> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>> You can't always do everything with a tool.
> We are not editing with forrest we are getting the output from another 
> tool. so this is a dependency on our project.


>> Now it's all a matter of who will maintain stuff and cater for it.
> This will attract people from docbook areas and from OpenOffice, they 
> will help to improve stuff. Do you want to remove docbook support?

Dunno, I don't use it.

>>> If you provide a nice way to write basic content WITHOUT users need 
>>> to deal with xml tags. Then I am happy to remove docbook support.
>> That's why I propose that we use html as basic content format. HTML 
>> editors are more easy to find than docbook ones, and furthermore they 
>> can be seen also directly from CVS.
>> Later we will support xhtml2 editors directly.
> But even if you have more editors for html, technically is a problem to 
> convert html to xml.

Well, there already is the ihtml converter.

> What I like from forrest is that It has import and output support for 
> diferent formats. Docbook support helps more than it hurds.

The point it who supports this support... as far as I'm concerned we can 
  keep the converters for these formats, as long as we clearly tell our 
users that they should not expect that much from them, and output 
warning messages when the stylesheet discards tags. This way users will 
know that they are using tags that we don't (yet) support.

Anyway, if we get the DTD-packages working, it will be easier for users 
to start contributing also to our stylesheets, as the layout will be 
easier to understand.

Nicola Ken Barozzi         
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)

View raw message