forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Wheller <s...@inwords.co.za>
Subject Re: Docbook as forrest-plugin
Date Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:36:44 GMT
On Wednesday 27 October 2004 15:06, Ross Gardler wrote:
> > With a working version, we will have a
> > prototype to experiment with. I have not thought this through, but after
> > Ricks message I got to thinking horizontally across plugins. I see that
> > it may be possible to pipe between plugins. If so then the natural thing
> > is to move directly between source formats in the direction of the most
> > robust and then pipe XHTML to forrest. This has the effect of directing
> > the output under a common stylesheet.
>
> Plugin dependencies? Ughhhh!!!
>
> (yes there may be a good use case for them at some point in the future,
> but I don't believe this is it - the intermediate format provides a
> consistent horizontal integration without creating dependencies between
> plugins)
>
> > Thinking vertical. Another method, is to transform XHTML2FO. There are a
> > few of these emerging. I have not tested any.
>
> This is *exactly* what we have been saying all along...
>
> First by me (in the context of this thread - not in terms of originating
> idea): http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=109870885916860&w=2
>
> Then by Dave (I think, can't find the post in the archive)
>
> Then by Nicola Ken:
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=109882493326389&w=2
>
> And in multiple points throughout this thread (note to self - I must
> find a way of explaining this much more clearly)

Yes and no. Everybody wanted to transform an internal intermediate format 
(ApacheDocV), or did I not understand?

Once we agreed to use XHTML (or a "subset" module thereof) as the internal 
format, the picture became XHTML2FO. At no point did anyone say "XHTML2FO". 
It was always "internal format", or "intermediate format," this meant 
"XML2FO" to me because presently this means:

<!DOCTYPE document PUBLIC "-//APACHE//DTD Documentation V2.0//EN" 
"http://forrest.apache.org/dtd/document-v20.dtd">

The intention is to move to XHTML2.0. For now support of XHTML1.0 gives us a 
step in that direction. When we implement XHTML1.0 we will have this as the 
"internal format" or "intermediate format."

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
                      "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

... and eventually:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 2.0 Transitional//EN"
                      "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/DTD/xhtml2-transitional.dtd">

someformat -> XHTML -> "HTML | POD | PDF | .......| ......"

>
> > I think this will be the most direct method to achieving the common
> > result Forrest demands. However, I would like to retain the ability to
> > switch this default off, especially if the whole site uses Docbook, DITA,
> > or TEI.
>
> Configurability is good.
>
> Does this mean we have reached an agreement :-))

<nodding/>Yep, yep, yep.</nodding>
If you like the description of terms above. :-)

-- 
Sean Wheller
Technical Author
sean@inwords.co.za
http://www.inwords.co.za

Mime
View raw message