forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Crossley <>
Subject Re: simplified docbook and forrest
Date Thu, 20 May 2004 04:31:09 GMT
Eli wrote:
> When I was looking
> for info about this for forrest - I came across the faq link that you mention
> above.  One thing that concerned me was:
> " Be aware that the stylesheet that
> does this transformation is deliberately very limited.
> The other way is to
> use the DocBook stylesheets directly. The DocBook DTDs are shipped with Forrest
> and automatically handled. However, you will need to have the DocBook stylesheets
> on your system (they are too massive to ship with Forrest) and configure Forrest
> accordingly. You will need to create a "sitemap"..."
> The sentence about
> significant limitation to me meant that there wasn't much of a useful thing
> that was produced (my assumption is probably wrong).

Well it is very useful. The FAQ remarks are intended to
make absolutely sure that it does not ever purport to be
"Full DocBook support".

You are very welcome to add to more capability to Forrest's
"partial support" stylesheets.

> As for the rest of
> the above paragraph - I know that for a forrest super-dude like you, David
> and a couple of other folks - this would be a walk in the park (i.e. editing
> the sitemap).  For me (a mere mortal that until now thought that forrests
> mainly involved those wooden tall stick like things)its a bit overwhelming
> (where the referenced linked refers to understanding Coccon, etc...).

It would be very beneficial for everyone to understand the
Cocoon Sitemap principles. That is why various parts of
our documentation link to Cocoon. It would be pointless for
us to develop our own documentation.

Do not be frightened. Once you grasp the power of the sitemap
you will be amazed.

Forest with one "r" is a group of sticks. We are named
after the famous "Forrest Gump" - our hero of simplicity.

> I suppose that I can hope that the limited version will be
> good enough.

As discussed, if it is not enough, then add more capability
and send a patch.


View raw message