xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pierpaolo Fumagalli <p...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [proposal] Better look and feel
Date Tue, 04 Jan 2000 18:55:09 GMT
Mike Pogue wrote:
> Since there are many projects under the xml.apache.org umbrella, I
> propose that the status (which I vote +1 on) should be on each
> individual subproject home page, and NOT on the main xml.apache.org home
> page.

I personally would prefer to see a one-line status message on
xml.apache.org, and then a full status page in each subproject webspace,
but I really don't care...

> I propose that code fragments that are wider than the fixed width table
> be rewritten so that they aren't so wide.  This is almost always
> possible.  So, I vote +1 for fixed width pages (I like very much to be
> able to print them).
> In the long term, I'd like the regular regen of the site to build BOTH
> the HTML and the PDF version of the site.  Then, the tables in the HTML
> can go back to variable width.  Until we have a working PDF solution,
> however, I think they should stay fixed width.
> So, I guess this is +1 for leaving them fixed for now, and +1 for
> changing them to variable width when PDF format for docs is available.

Agreed for the same reasons... I'm working on the PDF generation
stylesheet, and shouldn't take that long (I just wish that damn XSL:FO
was a little bit simpler!). Agreed.

> I think that Stylebook should not force one style and one grammar on
> everybody.  I think it's important that it be able to (on a regular
> basis) use different grammars and stylesheets.  We already have two
> stylesheets (apache and Xmas-apache, and I know of two more used
> internal to IBM, bringing the total to 4).  We have a couple of grammars
> (for each subproject).  If we go down to a single grammar, we will lose
> out on our testing, and our thinking will be narrow.

StyleBook/Cocoon IS NOT tied (and we are NOT WILLING to tie it) to a
specific DTD. But anyway, the current DTD we use is too simple to do
what we need. The changes are not essential, IMVHO, mainly additions to
what we already have (that's what I'm thinking) but necessary.

Things like better table handling, and better images/pictures handling
are required, IMVHO, so I accept and agree the modification of our
current DTDs (and my effort will be in preserving backward

> Also, I think there are very few people who actually do
> writing/documentation for more than one subproject at the same time, so
> making them common (while nice in the ideal case), is not required.

I already have problems handling the XALAN docs, since they use a
different grammar, and, how the situation is right now, is quite painful
to maintain our small website... I would like to agree on a Common DTD
for all our subprojects, so that we can all work in the same way.

> Besides, I don't like Stefano's grammar, and he doesn't like mine!  :-)

I don't like Stefano's grammar too, but I have to admit that the one we
designed needs some additions.

> (Note: somewhere down the road, when we have enough testing on this
> thing, and it stabilizes, I might be more convinced.  Right now, it's
> just making a change to the grammar, for at least one of us, with no
> real benefit to the individual subprojects. For all the same reasons, we
> don't force people to use Docbook....)

Let's make it this way... I know what Stefano wants, and I know what you
want... Let me come up with something in a few days and we can vote on
it? Do you agree?


View raw message