[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: RE : TR : RE : DOCBOOK: full recursive docbook
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 08:58:01PM +0100, Frédéric Glorieux wrote: > > > What about allow <article/> in <section/>? > > > Or allow <part/> in <part/>? > > > > Well, you would have to do some extensive customization > > of the DocBook DTD and XSL stylesheets to support that. > > Customizing docbook is possible, but losing compatibility with > standard tools is a great lost... this is the very last option. > So my question is more precisely, do you plan for one day to > support such constructions? I seriously doubt that the DocBook Technical Committee would permit mixing up the content hierarchy in the way you suggest. You can always file a Request for Enhancement at the DocBook SourceForge site, though. 8^) > The goal I purchase is perhaps of general > interest, a "leave-file" is an article, able to go in a one "file-tree" > standard docbook, or to be the page of a website (static or dynamic). > Very large software documentation project could find use of such things > (sorry for the reference, I think of the infinite? Microsoft.msdn tree) The DocBook hierarchy is extensive, but it is not infinite. set -> book -> part-> articles -> sections You may need to transform certain combinations of content into a valid hierarchy. > Before that, tricky things on sections are possible. Resolve the > author ones, and the ones appended by engine. @id, order wishes, funny > overriding effects possible, but not sure that authors will like it. > > [xinclude] > > I meant they could be generated. > > Perhaps then xinclude should be reserved to authors [with no > depth control], and engine use its own way. > > [a file-tree structure, made for collaborative work in a > "not-always-connected-world", where all folders are able to live alone > or in parents] > > OK. > Is it an opinion? Is <toc/> usage not abusive? > > > I'm not clear on how you are forming your links. > > You can't specify a <xref linkend="../section1.1.xml"/> in > > your DocBook. This looks more like XLink, which is not > > implemented in DocBook. > > I imagine to use <ulink/> with relative url, #id support, and > perhaps xpointer() if some want it. That means my own matcher of > <ulink/> in case of no protocol://. The links will be broken after > standard transformation, sad but not a too big problem. > Working on the URI string is perhaps enough for our simple needs > (because there's also very complex needs, "semantic links" it's called, > probably outside the docbook namespace). It could also be resolved in a > publishing framework (cocoon like), or parsed for some SQL. Hope you can get it all working. -- Bob Stayton 400 Encinal Street Publications Architect Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Technical Publications voice: (831) 427-7796 The SCO Group fax: (831) 429-1887 email: bobs@sco.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]