[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: DOCBOOK: Re: doc domain vs. problem domain semantics
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 07:41:23AM +0000, Matt G. wrote: > > >3. The DocBook Technical Committee (TC) is actively maintaining > >DocBook. If you have a construct for which there is no suitable tag, > >and the problem domain you are working in is not too far afield, > >chances are the TC will address the issue. > > The problem is that this approach doesn't scale well. That's what I'm > trying to address. > > >4. If you need a new element and either can't wait for the TC to > >consider it, are if the TC rejects your use case for some reason, you > >can always add it yourself. > > I'd like to see people start maintaining sets of application-specific > customizations + stylesheets, for DocBook. Then, people could assemble > packages, which include these customization modules and their associated > stylesheet modules. Of course, without namespaces, this approach won't > scale very well. > > > >>The entire design of DocBook is geared to make it possible for > > >>you to write customization layers that provide the exact markup > > >>that you need. > > I see this as the core competency of the TC. If they do a good job with > document structure & meta info (and they have), then there can be > customizations for dozens of fields of every sort. [stuff deleted] Matt, it's my understanding that you are suggesting that DocBook become a general purpose publishing system. You'd like to see it structured in a way that permits it to be adapted to many kinds of publications, not just computer-related documentation. There will be some resistance to this notion, because of DocBook's origins. It grew out of a consortium of computer companies wanting a common source format for its documentation. Those computer companies funded (and continue to fund through OASIS) the development of DocBook to that purpose. It is not currently in the charter of the DocBook Technical Committee to develop a general-purpose publishing system. As often happens, though, a good tool can be put to new uses. The DocBook developers did such a good job designing and implmenting the DTD and the related stylesheets that they can be used for purposes for which they weren't intended. The customization features that were included to enable individual computer companies to change or add elements to meet their specific documentation needs also permit anyone to customize DocBook for non-computer related needs. Such customizations are permitted and encouraged. But that's different from saying that DocBook should be designed so that it can be adapted to all publishing needs. As you say, namespaces might be needed to keep separate the various modules that could be added. But namespaces considerably complicate the schema, toolset, and authoring process. The TC is starting the examine the use of namespaces for tables, math, and graphics. If those problems are worked out, then adding other namespaces would be enabled. Perhaps DocBook should move in the direction of general-purpose publishing, but I think that is a fundamental question that the DocBook Technical Committee will have to settle before it starts restructuring DocBook. I'm willing to take that question to the committee, however. As Norm pointed out, DocBook can already be customized to meet application-specific needs. I agree that the process could be better documented, and that perhaps a registry of supported third-party customizations be made available. I'd also point out that DocBook is not the only DTD out there. The Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) has a modular DTD that can be mixed and matched to meet many publishing needs, and contains no computer-related elements that I can see. 8^) TEI also has a set of XSL stylesheets that are modularized: <http://www.hcu.ox.ac.uk/TEI/Stylesheets/teixsl.html> Bob Stayton 400 Encinal Street Publications Architect Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Technical Publications voice: (831) 427-7796 Caldera International, Inc. fax: (831) 429-1887 email: bobs@caldera.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC