[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [docbook-apps] Docbook2odf has been released today in pre-alphaversion!
Roman Fordinal wrote: > Yes, I know you work on similar project. I am thinking that we could > consider joining our projects, but there might be a problem - we are not > following same goals. Ok, let's review our goals and see if they are close. > My goal is to get maximal effect in conversion and there may be a price > to pay by support of fewer docbook tags (although I want to support all > of them). My goal is also not just to convert articles but also to > convert book and slides (especially slides are top priority for me). My goal is not just to support articles. I'm starting with articles because they looked like a good place to start. Also, 90% of the XSLT is common for every type of document. For example, text tags (sections, emphasis, trademark, etc), tables of content, references, lists, images, etc. Those are all the same for all types of document. I admit that I have no particular interest in slides. But you could, for example, make a stylesheet for slides that reuses the 90% that is common for everything. A bigger issue, I think, is that we are working with different versions of DocBook (I finally managed to download the package). You are working on version 4.3 and I'm working on version 5. And they're different. My reason for choosing version 5 is that one day it'll be the standard, and also, Norman Walsh has already made an XSLT to transform version 4 into version 5. > I would like to finish it in time horizon of month or two (release > candidate version). My XSLT already does a reasonable job on text-only articles including lists (and I just added <xref>'s). It understands about 43 tags. I don't have a timeline for my project. But I'm trying to go from the most useful features, to the least. My inmediate goal is to support the 20% of the features that people use 80% of the time. I'm currently at about 10% or so. > Yes, but license is included in tar.gz. > Project is licensed under GPL (v2), and I am able to see that in admin > mode, but there is no reflection of this fact in summary page, for > unknown reasons. I will try to fix that. Mine is LGPL, except for the styles which are public domain (so no one wonders if using the XSLT means that the output must be LGPL). Cheers, Daniel. -- /\/`) http://oooauthors.org /\/_/ http://opendocumentfellowship.org /\/_/ \/_/ I am not over-weight, I am under-tall. /