From general-return-5173-apmail-xml-general-archive=xml.apache.org@xml.apache.org Thu Nov 01 19:19:42 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xml-general-archive@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 21087 invoked by uid 500); 1 Nov 2001 19:19:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: general@xml.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 21034 invoked from network); 1 Nov 2001 19:19:41 -0000 Subject: Re: website++ To: general@xml.apache.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.7 March 21, 2001 Message-ID: From: Donald_Leslie@lotus.com Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 14:19:41 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on CAMMAIL03/CAM/M/Lotus(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 11/01/2001 02:19:40 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N As a writer on the Xalan sub-project, I am worried about the potential problems of adapting to a new XML doctype with no transition. Before we abandon the original xml.apache.org XML doctypes (book, s1, faqs, etc.) in place of DocBook or any other document type, I think we should create the stylesheets to transform our current doctypes into the desired HTML output. We certainly don't need to continue to use StyleBook (a tool, not a set of doctypes), since it is poorly documented and maintained. Given when it was written (over 2 years ago) it is inefficient (DOM-, not SAX-oriented) in its use of Xalan, and everyone appears to want to get away from the graphics that it is currently configured (given the stylesheets in xml-site/style) to generate. It does package up the generation of an HTML "book," but Xalan can do the same on its own with its org.apache.xalan.lib.PipeDocument extension element, which allows a base stylesheet to generate a TOC from a book document, and to oversee the use of other stylesheets to transform each source document (s1, faqs, etc.) to HTML. If someone finds it convenient to first transform the original doctypes to DocBook, and then from DocBook to HTML, fine! Those who are ready to move to DocBook for managing their XML sources can do so, and cut out the first transformation step in generating HTML. Others can continue to update the original documents without worrying about mastering DocBook all at once. I have a procedure in place for transforming the book/s1/faqs doctypes to DITA XML and from DITA to HTML and PDF, so I know what I speak of above is manageable. For those who are interested in DITA, a highly modular and extensible doctype architecture that supports a really neat inheritance scheme for specializing s, see http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/x-dita1/index.html and http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-dita2/index.html. -- Don Leslie Edwin Goei on 10/29/2001 09:06:30 PM Please respond to general@xml.apache.org To: general@xml.apache.org cc: (bcc: Donald Leslie/CAM/Lotus) Subject: Re: website++ "Theodore W. Leung" wrote: > > I've done some minimal playing around with the top level website in > xml-site, and have modified the styles to get rid of all the images. A > version of the top level site using this style is viewable at > http://www.apache.org/~twl/new-site/index.html Looks good. So I'm not sure I understand. What are you using to generate that page? Cocoon2? > If people think that this is a good direction, then I'll keep working to > finalize a simple style before tackling docbook. Yeah, I think it's a good direction. As for style, I see these options for the source XML schema: + docbook = may be too complicated + simplified docbook = may not be familiar to most + xhtml = familiar to most, but may not be expressive enough + stylebook.dtd = not widely used When I had to decide on one of these options a while ago, I chose xhtml b/c it was familiar and I though that I could always transform it to something else later, but it turns out that there might not be enough info in the source to do that w/o hand tweaking the result. > > Note: I am not a photoshop / image wizard, so the image bar at the top > still looks ugly. Suggestions on what to do up there are more than > welcome. I'm not much of an artist so I can't help here. :-) Thanks for taking this on. I know this has been discussed lots of times in the past, but it seems to always get dropped b/c no one actually works on it. -Edwin --------------------------------------------------------------------- In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org