RE: [docbook] DocBook Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 18 Mar2003

["Robert Koberg" <rob@koberg.com>]

Hi

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fredrik Svensson [mailto:fred@ludd.luth.se]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 1:21 PM
<snip/>
>
> Is it easier to express complex tables in HTML ?
> (ok there are nice tools for HTML but I mean from a pure documenational
> standpoint)
> What is the strength/weekness of the table models from a more technical
> perspective ?

I currently use a mix of XHTML, Docbook and custom markup for a browser based
~WYSIWYG tool. So, for me, I don't care one way or another if it is included in
Docbook. I will use it that way anyway :) It is much easier, for my needs to use
XHTML for things that render as they should in the browser. I mainly use DB for
things that can be transformed by using something like:

<!-- xsl:include href="content-types/docbook.xsl" -->
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<xsl:stylesheet
  version="1.0"
  xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform"
  xmlns:db="http://livestoryboard.com/lsb/Schemas/2003/03/docbook"
  exclude-result-prefixes="db">
  <xsl:template match="db:*">
    <div class="{local-name()}">
      <xsl:apply-templates select="@*" mode="docbook"/>
      <xsl:apply-templates/>
    </div>
  </xsl:template>
  <xsl:template match="@*" mode="docbook">
    <xsl:attribute name="{local-name()}">
      <xsl:value-of select="."/>
    </xsl:attribute>
  </xsl:template>
</xsl:stylesheet>

Then I can take care of all the docbook stuff with CSS. I can override whatever
needs to overriden when necessary. It really simplifies the DB XSL :) and allows
users to edit while seeing what they would get when rendered.

I can use full docbook (thank &deity; for MSXML SOM) but the mappings are simply
too painful.

best,
-Rob