Re: [docbook] Feedback on DocBook Transclusion proposal

[Dave Pawson <davep@dpawson.co.uk>]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 20:29:19 +0100
Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz> wrote:

> > If not, has implementation been considered?
> 
> The more work will be to implement this in XML editors. I think it is
> implementable, the question is whether tool vendors would like to
> spend money on developing this features. Remember they already have
> to support entities, XIncludes and DITA conref.

To be quite honest, I wouldn't expect them to implement it. 
Same with xInclude.



> 
> > "My other concern is more vague. This feels like something more
> > general than DocBook, it seems like something that other schemas
> > might want to reuse, so I wonder if it belongs in DocBook
> > specifically. I suppose if authors want it and vendors will
> > implement it, we can let other folks copy it."
> >
> > I agree about its complexity, perhaps a W3C attitude of 'show me an
> > implementation then I'll give it a mark of approval' might be
> > appropriate? I.e. if it proves to be too complex we might need to
> > look for an alternative?
> 
> Processing complexity is in handling duplicate IDs in repeatedly
> inserted content and links to such IDs.

Understandable. I think my 'can it be *fully* implemented' 
is a fair question? 

> 
> Of course it would be better to develop and use some more generic
> approach then to develop something specific to DocBook. The problem is
> that solution has to know which attributes are of ID/IDREF types -- it
> is hard to do this without schema introspection. Also DocBook specific
> mechanism will always nicely fit into language then some generic
> vocabulary (compare with XInclude or XLink for example).


Which puts it nicely between the two positions? Docbook only
or generic and even harder?

My initial reaction is to restrict it to docbook,
If implemented, and if it works well there, then perhaps look for wider
adoption?

regards 






-- 

regards 

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk