Обсуждение: Documentation DTD

Anyone mind if we bump the DTD version to Docbook 4.2?

This consists on all users who wish to build docs on installing the 4.2
DTD set, and updating some depreciated tags within the sgml files.

comment -> remark
docinfo -> appendixinfo, chapterinfo, bookinfo, etc.


What it buys is a number of useful tags, SVGs and probably more
importantly for the future, xsl and fop support which will probably be
important in the future.  OpenJade hasn't had a new release in quite a
long time -- not to say work isn't needed.

Yes, after updating docs to the newer DTD I intend to make them XML
compliant to ensure they work with v5 of docbook in the future.

Rod Taylor <rbt@zort.ca> writes:
> Anyone mind if we bump the DTD version to Docbook 4.2?

Peter E. is the gatekeeper on that, I think --- he pushed us to 4.1
not long ago.

If Peter's okay with 4.2, then full speed ahead ...
        regards, tom lane

PS: pgsql-docs is probably the more appropriate forum for this
discussion.

Rod Taylor writes:

> Anyone mind if we bump the DTD version to Docbook 4.2?

Not sure if we should do this now.  We're approaching the time where
people should be writing documentation, not having to refiddle their
carefully crafted DocBook installations.  We're not going to realize any
immediate benefits anyway.

> What it buys is a number of useful tags, SVGs and probably more
> importantly for the future, xsl and fop support which will probably be
> important in the future.  OpenJade hasn't had a new release in quite a
> long time -- not to say work isn't needed.

The last release was in January.

> Yes, after updating docs to the newer DTD I intend to make them XML
> compliant to ensure they work with v5 of docbook in the future.

Ah, an XML vs. SGML debate.  I look forward to it.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net

> > Yes, after updating docs to the newer DTD I intend to make them XML
> > compliant to ensure they work with v5 of docbook in the future.
> 
> Ah, an XML vs. SGML debate.  I look forward to it.

This one is pretty simple.  It's been announced that the docbook group
isn't looking to continue with SGML.  This is shown on the oasis-open
pages as well as their discussion in the mailing lists (xsltproc and fop
rather than jade and dsssl).

I prefer working with SGML, but not enough to try hacking away at
openjade to finish it off :)


Anyway, you're right about the patch.  Lets apply it to the 7.4 tree 
after branching.

> Rod Taylor writes:
> 
> > Anyone mind if we bump the DTD version to Docbook 4.2?
> 
> Not sure if we should do this now.  We're approaching the time where
> people should be writing documentation, not having to refiddle their
> carefully crafted DocBook installations.  We're not going to realize any
> immediate benefits anyway.

Indeed.

> > What it buys is a number of useful tags, SVGs and probably more
> > importantly for the future, xsl and fop support which will probably be
> > important in the future.  OpenJade hasn't had a new release in quite a
> > long time -- not to say work isn't needed.
> 
> The last release was in January.
> 
> > Yes, after updating docs to the newer DTD I intend to make them XML
> > compliant to ensure they work with v5 of docbook in the future.
> 
> Ah, an XML vs. SGML debate.  I look forward to it.

Please no!

If and when it becomes forcibly preferable to use XML, there's a
tool called sgml2xml that is part of the "sp" package (which includes nsgmls 
and sgmlnorm) that does a Perfectly Good Job of this.  Totally automated.

Possible exception: sgml2xml capitalizes all the tags, and it looks like the 
XML DTD wants MixedCaseTagging, which is a rather irritating thing about XML; 
in any case, that's something that should be fixed up in one fell swoop in a 
"normalize it all and make it into XML" process LATER.

It would make sense to fix use of any deprecated elements, but "fixing" any 
XML aspects of it now is pretty much a senseless exercise.
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "moc.enworbbc@" "enworbbc"))
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/emacs.html
"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons".  -- POPULAR
MECHANICS magazine forecasting the "relentless march of science" 1955