xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Pogue <mpo...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [proposal] Better look and feel
Date Wed, 05 Jan 2000 19:33:39 GMT
Pier, is your clock one day off?  I just got this message, and it's
dated Tuesday.

If you are offering to do the PDF translation, great!!!  Cool!!!

Yes, I'm OK with extending the current DTD's to include new features
that are needed.  I don't want to break all the existing stuff, though,
by just renaming existing tags.  ICU Open Source (on developerWorks) is
using essentially the same DTD as us right now, and I don't want them to
break either.  

As you say, "better table handling, and better images/pictures handling"
is a good idea, especially if it can be done in a compatible way.  Go
ahead and put something together...If it's compatible, and doesn't break
everything, I think it will be easily accepted by all.

I don't know what to do about Xalan.  I don't know how far away their
grammar is from the one most everybody else uses.  Perhaps if the
differences were clearly spelled out in a table, it would be easier to
talk about?  For this round, if Xalan really needs to be different, then
maybe they stay different for a while.  Let's figure out why they are

I like your proposal to get more concrete about the ideas.  It will be
easier to discuss.


Pierpaolo Fumagalli wrote:
> 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...
> +0
> > 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
> compatibility!)
> > 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?
>         Pier

View raw message