[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: experimental release of linuxdoc-tools (based on sgml-tools 1.0.9)

On May 17, 10:43am, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Subject: Re: experimental release of linuxdoc-tools (based on sgml-tools
> "Greg Ferguson" <gferg@hoop.timonium.sgi.com> writes:
> > I'd like to see if we can get linuxdoc support into the v2
> > sgml-tools packages. We'd need to provide the DTD and a
> > set of DSSSL stylesheets along with perhaps a couple of
> > catalog files.
> Um, I don't think linuxdoc *has* a DTD or DSSSL files.

Right. I have seen a DTD, but no DSSSL. I'm proposing that we
create such a package and make it available for use with the
standard tools (jade/openjade, etc.) -- in the same way Norm
Walsh and the Oasis crew provide the DocBook DTD and the
accompanying DSSSL stylesheets.

> OTOH, SGMLtools Lite or whatever *could* support sgmltools v1 or
> linuxdoc tools or whatever it is called.  Supposing that software is
> already installed, all it would have to do is provide the capability
> to wrap around the linuxdoc scripts with it's own 'sgmltools' wrapper.
> If anyone wants to do this, apply as a developer at sourceforge.

I might be over-simplifying things, but I do not believe
that will be necessary. I wouldn't want to see that, I think it
adds too much complexity.

> > Do you think we should go that route? That way we have 1
> > toolset (jade/openjade), with support for both DTDs (DocBook
> > and Linuxdoc).
> I approve of one tool which is extensible -- it's name is sgmltools
> lite, now a days.  I object to the idea of merging the linuxdoc
> perl/ASP or whatever it is back into the sgmltools lite package.

We are in agreement.

I certainly do not want to have to merge the (old) scripts into the
new package and I don't believe that would be necessary. I do not
believe this v1 / v2 discrepency is necessary, it causes confusion;
and beyond Taketoshi, there does not appear to be too many others
still working on v1 (linuxdoc) support.

I believe we need to simply nail down a DTD and DSSSL package for
linuxdoc...same model as what is done w/DocBook.

Again, I might be over-simplifying this, and that is why I brought
it up for discussion. The linuxdoc DTD is not too complex, so it
may not take a huge effort to do this.

If we can:

1) Produce a *maintained* package comprised of the linuxdoc DTD
   and linuxdoc DSSSL stylesheets

2) Fold that package into SGMLtools Lite (and/or SGMLtools v2)

3) Make the existing wrapper scripts "DTD-aware" (if this is necessary),

then I believe we'd be in great shape from a tools perspective wrt
linuxdoc support.


Greg Ferguson     - s/w engr / mtlhd         | gferg@sgi.com
SGI Tech Pubs     - http://techpubs.sgi.com  | 
Linux Doc Project - http://www.linuxdoc.org  |

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org