forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Crossley <>
Subject Re: Where is Docbook support going?
Date Fri, 07 Nov 2003 05:55:01 GMT
ycdtosa Ignacio Martinez wrote:
> Hello, first post here... mind my poor English!

Thanks. Don't worry, if we do not understand then we will ask you.

> 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.

> > > David Crossley wrote:
> > > > I just started removing mention of the partial DocBook support.
> > > > Then i stopped because i was not sure that we had reached consensus
> > > > on this. Nobody spoke up about it after the below email, so does
> > > > that mean that nobody is interested in the partial support idea?
> > > > --David
> I think the stuff should stay (as an example) and the notes about
> the partial support should be rewritten so people dont feel fooled
> later.

*If* we decide to keep partial support, then the sdocbook example
in the 'forrest seed' example site could be extended to fully
explain the limitations and the current status. Suggestions have
also been made to define our subset in a DTD so they will not
be surprised.

> and long ago he (david) also wrote:
> > >>I think that we should dump that and concentrate on better
> > >>documentation to describe how to configure full DocBook rendering.
> Better doc is needed i agree on that too.

Yes, and we will do that when Forrest direction for DocBook is
finally clarified.

> IMO we should embrace the stylesheets from the's
> i agree, we can not compete; those stylesheets are a beautiful
> work and very modular.
> work should be done on some css files to style/skin the output (on
> xhtml/html/etc)
> > > >>
> > > >>There are two aspects to DocBook support.
> > > >>
> > > >>One is the ability to validate DocBook xml source documents during
> > >>the build. For that we need to provide DTDs (we do have some), or
> > >>documentation about how to configure their own (we do have that), or
> > >>a mechanism to download them if they are not on the user's system
> > >>(we do have a proposal for that capability).
> > >>
> > >>The other aspect is rendering the DocBook documents. We have some
> > >>documentation describing how to configure the full DocBook XSLTs.
> > >>The problematic piece is the alternative (yet minimal)
> > >>docbook2document.xsl which is not being enhanced or maintained.
> > >>I think that we should dump that and concentrate on better
> > >>documentation to describe how to configure full DocBook rendering.
> > >>
> > >>--David
> On some other thread the option of "extending document v12 dtd"
> its being discussed...
> 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.


View raw message