forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: Documentv20 --> DocBook
Date Thu, 14 Apr 2005 12:02:24 GMT
Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
> Ross Gardler wrote:
> the move to a
> RG> subset of XHTML2 is only to enable us to leverage emerging XHTML2 
> RG> editors
> If that is so, would it not make more sense to only support XHTML2 as
> an input format and stick with documentv-xx for our interal format.
> Especially now that xhtml-2 support could be easily offered as a
> plugin?

Document v2.0 is not the same as the XHTML2 subset we want to support. 
Plus, we don't know how XHTML2 may change in the future, by adopting 
XHTML2 as an internal format we remove the need to have XDoc track any 
changes in XHTML2.

Since XDoc brings no additional value, why keep the overhead?

Perhaps even more importantly, I "forgot" another key reason to using 
XHTML as the internal format:

Many source formats already provide a set of XSL sheets for transforming 
into XHTML. If we use that as our internal format we simplify our 
transformation pipeline. Consider the docbook scenario in this original 

Currently, to support the full Docbook format we would have to do:

docbook -> XHTML -> XDoc -> Output format

However, if we adopt XHTML as our internal format this becomes:

docbook -> XHTML -> Output format

This would also be true if we chose to support XHTML as an input format:

XHTML2 -> XDoc ->Output Format

instead of:

XHTML2 -> Output format

So the transformation is more efficient and we need only maintain one 
set of stylesheets and no schema definitions. Again, if XDoc is bringing 
now benefit over XHTML why increase out maintenance requirements in 
order to continue its support?

Finally, users like things to be standards compliant - we can remove a 
proprietary schema and replace it with a open standard, got to be good.


View raw message