forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Wheller <>
Subject Re: Docbook as forrest-plugin
Date Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:01:29 GMT
On Wednesday 27 October 2004 10:25, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Sean Wheller wrote:
> > On Wednesday 27 October 2004 01:24, Rick Tessner wrote:

Rick thanks for that post, seems it did achieve something.

> ...
> >>Right now, we seem to be stuck on this idea of the intermediate format
> >>which I think we're all agreed we need in order to be able to present a
> >>consistent look and feel.  
> >>Currently, that format is document-v12 and in
> >>the future will be a subset of XHTML 1.0 or 2.0.
> >
> > Ouch there we go again, that word "subset." When will forrest do it
> > properly? Can we really expect Forrest to be a robust product system if
> > we put it in a box. I am happy with XHTMLX.X, but not a "subset." I won't
> > ramble on as to why.
> For example, we won't even think to start implementing these modules in
> the beginning:
> # 22. Ruby Module
> # 23. XHTML Scripting Module
> # 27. XForms Module
> # 28. XML Events Module
> And for example, we will not do this, as it mixes style in the content:
> # 24. XHTML Style Attribute Module
> ...

OK, step by step. What will you implement?

> No nead to shout :-)

Sorry not shouting, just trying to show the difference.

> > XHTML extends beyond forrest. When I think "internal format" I think
> > "proprietary", like the document VX and "subset of XHTML."
> Here is the misunderstanding. For us internal == used internally, not
> proprietary. We are giving different meanings.

Yes, this is what I thought after reading the message from Rick.

> And also note that a subset of XHTML2 is not necessarily proprietary, as
> it's modular.

True. So can we be more precise about what we will do in stage one. Then, 
assuming, that we can all agree to move on. Set a devel schedule to implement 
those parts beyond milestone 1 work scope. Such as those above. To get to a 
full XHTML compliance cannot be done in a day.

> >>Thoughts?
> >>
> >>I do have a couple of concerns tho:
> >>
> >>1.  I used Docbook a few years back and the performance was not a
> >>     wonderous thing due to all the imports / includes that were
> >>     necessary as part of its modular design.  Might not be the
> >>     best for a servlet based Forrest site.
> >
> > Yes, it can be heavy. Performance will reduce on large documents, books,
> > sets. For small documents like articles it is not a problem.
> Our reasoning is that for small documents XHTML is more than adeguate.
> IOW DocBook is too heavy for those documents where is't more needed :-)

Yes, no need to use the atom bomb to blow an ant hill. Still users such as 
those with Docbook have heavy requirements and need a high level of 
presentation, without information loss.

> ...
> >>2.  What about the wholesite.pdf / wholesite.html / tabs-as-pdf bits?
> >>     I don't have a good enough feel for Forrest yet as to what would
> >>     happen here.
> >
> > Good question? Won't it work the same as it does now?
> If we pipe it into the intermediate format (we call it 'internal'), then
> it will still all work.

Good. I attach a PNG that blocks out my thinking. If anyone want the "dia" 
format let me know. Any question just ask.

Sean Wheller
Technical Author

View raw message