forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Brondsema <>
Subject Re: Where is Docbook support going?
Date Fri, 07 Nov 2003 05:36:38 GMT
Quoting David Crossley <>:

> > Well, it may help others to find their way to custom docbook processing..
> > anyway nwalsh stylesheets DO offer the same functionality,
> > however, mention of the partial DocBook support as a feature
> > may disapoint many people with higher expectations about it.
> Yes, this is one of the key issues. A related issue is that those
> partial stylesheets are not being maintained in Forrest, so they
> might be jettisoned.

Partial stylesheets may encourage some people to improve them.  But if they are
not complete or nearly-complete, I would suggest putting them into the sandbox.
 The FAQ can say that they are there if anyone wants to improve them, but they
are not included in the standard distribution.

> > i want to point a fact here:
> > - Docbook is a very rich and powerful 'format'
> > - Document v12 (so does v20 as far as i know) is not that powerful as
> > docbook
> > and if u go from docbook to document you have to discard a lot of info in
> > the way
> >
> > i did try to get some docbook document render with the dbk2doc aproach
> > and i got stock in the middle... there is no way to get a 'decent' support
> > without extending the document vx.x DTD... and then
> >     whats the point of extending it???
> >     we do have docbook.
> >     we do even have simplified docbook.!
> >     should we extend the document DTD in the Docbook direction?
> > 
> > I dont think thats the way to go.
> These are more reasons to dump the partial support.
> Forrest does not propose to move toward DocBook as Forrest's
> native format. We do want to enable people to use DocBook
> for their project and process it with Forrest.
> You will however find past discussion on moving to xhtml2.

At first I was sceptical of xhtml2 as an intermediate format because some parts
of the documentv12 format (most specifically, sections) would be lost in the
conversion.  What if we wanted to use those sections for a TOC in a PDF?

However, upon reading parts of this past dicussion, I think the advantages would
be great.  Most notable, it's closeness to HTML and it's popularity as a
standard.  Both of these would allow many types of WYSIWYG editors to be used
(one of forrest's biggest disadvantages now, IMO) and allow for 3rd party
programs to export their data to XHTML2.  And like you said, existing
docbook2xhtml stylesheets could be leveraged.

Dave Brondsema - personal - programming - student org 

View raw message