forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <>
Subject Re: [Proposal] HTML as base Forrest format
Date Mon, 03 Jan 2005 08:55:52 GMT
David Crossley wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>>I intend HTML4 and XHTML1.1, with HTML4 *preferred*, as it facilitates 
>>usage. "Be forgiving in what you accept, be strict in what you deliver".
> Why do we need to "prefer"? We could just say which input formats are
> available and have a document which list the pros and cons.

People now approach Forrest thinking that they should write the docs in 

I want them to think that they should write the docs in plain HTML, 
whatever their editor provides.

>>Actually I'm only talking about the SOURCE format.
>>The proposal is simply to deprecate the xdoc format as an *input* 
>>format, and concentrate on HTML4 and XHTML1.x for the _source_.
> Earlier in this thread you used this expression: (X)HTML(1|2)
> When it comes time for a vote, then it should be explicit.

What you have cited above is what I intend.

> We would need to deprecate the xdoc input format over a long period
> or provide a special build target to convert from xdocs.

Yes, the plain-dev skin already works quite well.

> I gather that it has always been the plan to evolve the "xdocs" format
> to XHTML2 anyway. So i am just seeing this proposal as being in line
> with that.

That's the idea.

> My concerns are the "prefer" issue above, and understanding how
> we do FAQs and HOWTOs and CHANGES without having the xdocs to control
> the structure.

Exactly my point: ATM users cannot use html to do all that they do with 
xdoc. By concentrating all our efforts towards html input, we will be 
forced to put that functionality there. Hence the *preferred* format.

Nicola Ken Barozzi         
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)

View raw message