Re: [docbook-apps] Docbook website tutorial

[Brad Tombaugh <Brad@Tombaugh.org>]

Dave, that's an excellent overview!  I have a few comments/suggestions:

- inconsistent use of "docbook" vs. "DocBook"

- perhaps use "Website" to differentiate the DTD from any arbitrary  
web site?

- DocBook:TDG is co-authored by Norm Walsh and Leonard Muellner

- Another reason to use Website is that it builds all of the  
navigation system for you automatically, once you have defined the  
structure.

For the issue with versions in the directory names, you might suggest  
making an alias/symbolic link/shortcut instead of renaming the  
directory? Then you could easily switch versions by changing where the  
link points?

I have used Website for some time as well, but use a combination of  
Make script, xsltproc, and rsync instead of ant. Rsync and xsltproc  
are standard in Mac OS X, and make is installed as part of the  
Developer tools, so the only items that need to be installed on OS X  
are the DTD and style sheets. I could send an example script if you  
are interested.

--------
Brad Tombaugh
mailto:Brad@Tombaugh.org
http://www.Tombaugh.org

On Feb 21, 2008, at 12:57 AM, Dave Pawson wrote:

> Lou Springer wrote:
>> This looks like really nice work. I'm going to have to try it out  
>> to give it a full workout.
>> I have a question more related the tool chain design than the  
>> document. I assume there must be some constraint that prevents the  
>> use of standard Docbook 5 and the related HTML stylesheets?
>
> Yes, none of the website stylesheets are namespaced, i.e. they
> process content in the null|default namespace.
>
>
>> Also, do you think it might be helpful to recommend some editing  
>> tools? On the other hand,
>
> <grin/> NO. Most definately not! I hate flame wars/permathreads
> whatever!
>  <stir>Anyway, there is only one editor? Emacs</strir>
>
>
> I suppose there are many options that are already
>> documented elsewhere on your site.
>
> I've tried to avoid it, editors seem to be such a personal
> preference; all you can do is list them and report good
> points bad points. Chances are that what I think are good
> (features) others won't like, so IMHO it's just not worth it.
>
> Google for xml editors - try them and take your pick.
> Oxygen is the only other editor I've come away thinking
> good things about.
>
> regards
>
> -- 
> Dave Pawson
> XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
> http://www.dpawson.co.uk