RE: [docbook-apps] DocBook Customization

["Dick Hamilton" <rlhamilton@frii.com>]

Scott,

Good points.

I'm a firm fan of DocBook and think it can do anything
that DITA can (and more). But, if anyone on the list has
the chops to do a DITA XSL: The Definitive Guide, let me
know; I think it's needed and I'd like to publish it.

Dick Hamilton
---------------------------------
XML Press
XML for Technical Communicators
http://xmlpress.net
(970) 231-3624 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Hudson [mailto:scott.hudson@flatironssolutions.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 7:23 PM
> To: Bob Stayton
> Cc: Eric Johnson; DocBook Apps ML
> Subject: Re: [docbook-apps] DocBook Customization
> 
> 
> If you want to "start" with a simplified version of DocBook, 
> you should 
> check out the Simplified DocBook DTD or the new Publishers 
> schema. These 
> are "official" customizations that minimize the number of elements.
> 
> With the proposed Modular DocBook addition to the standard (likely 
> v5.1), there soon will be a way to more easily work at a topic level 
> while remaining in DocBook compliance.
> 
> I second Eric's opinion that there is no DITA XSL: The 
> Complete Guide, 
> so the customization for DITA is much more challenging!
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> --Scott
> 
> Bob Stayton wrote:
> > Hi Eric,
> > My impression is that many groups adopt DITA because they 
> want to work 
> > in topics rather than chapters. Then they do whatever is 
> needed to use 
> > DITA to write topics. I have been in contact with more than 
> one group 
> > that has adopted DITA without any DTD customization.  As 
> you say, people 
> > often do crazy things.  8^)
> >  
> > One common DocBook customization practice is to cut down on 
> the number 
> > of elements.  There are several reasons why: 
> >  
> > a.  When using an XML editor that presents a list of valid 
> tag names, 
> > the list can be quite long in many contexts (such as 
> inlines).  Many 
> > such elements are never to be used, so remove them from sight.
> >  
> > b.  Reducing ambiguity in choosing among similar elements.
> >  
> > c.  Reducing the complexity of a stylesheet customization. 
> If you know 
> > you are only supporting certain elements you don't need to have 
> > templates for all elements.
> >  
> > d.  Reduce the complexity of the para element by removing 
> block element 
> > children (making it like simpara).
> >  
> > It is possible to make a subset that still produces documents that 
> > validate with the full DocBook schema. But of course not 
> the other way 
> > around.
> >  
> > In terms of the cost of customization, I have found customizing the 
> > DocBook 4 DTD to be easier than customizing the DITA DTDs. 
> In DITA's 
> > DTDs, everything is a twice-removed parameter entity, and 
> it is hard to 
> > keep track of where an element is actually declared and 
> what children it 
> > can contain.  DocBook 4 uses parameter entities, but not to such a 
> > complex degree.  DocBook 5's RelaxNG grammar is even easier to 
> > customize, once you learn the grammar.
> >  
> > Bob Stayton
> > Sagehill Enterprises
> > bobs@sagehill.net <mailto:bobs@sagehill.net>
> >  
> >  
> > 
> >     ----- Original Message -----
> >     *From:* Eric Johnson <mailto:EMJOHNSO@progress.com>
> >     *To:* DocBook Apps ML <mailto:docbook-apps@lists.oasis-open.org>
> >     *Sent:* Tuesday, May 19, 2009 5:11 AM
> >     *Subject:* [docbook-apps] DocBook Customization
> > 
> >     I was talking to someone last night and they mentioned that the
> >     biggest use case, and the one that is causing everyone 
> to flock to
> >     DITA, for using DocBook is to take the schema and then 
> customize it.
> > 
> >     My first reaction was to think "That's completely 
> crazy. This person
> >     is obviously just a DITA cultist and seeing the world 
> through tinted
> >     lenses." Then the cynic in me piped up and said "People often do
> >     crazy things."
> > 
> >     Is this a big use case in the DocBook world? Do 
> organizations start
> >     with standard DocBook and then tweak it around to make some
> >     customized version of the schema that is no longer DocBook?
> > 
> >     Why would an organization customize DocBook instead of 
> adopting DITA
> >     which is built with the (almost) requirement that it be 
> customized?
> > 
> >     What is the cost of doing the customization?
> >     One of the reasons my group adopted DocBook was that 
> the schema did
> >     not need to be customized. We had to create a few 
> guidelines around
> >     using certain tags, but that was much easier than modifying the
> >     schema. Perhaps in larger groups using the schema to 
> enforce rules
> >     is more desirable.
> > 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-apps-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
> docbook-apps-help@lists.oasis-open.org
> 
>