Re: [docbook-apps] DocBook specializations

[cstrong@arielpartners.com]

I and others on this list have already traded specializations and even
made an attempt at coming up with packaging guidelines.

Based on my experiences with other open source products (Ant, Zope, Cocoon,
Struts, Emacs, etc.) having a library of optional add-ons is an important
factor in speeding adoption/attracting new users.  For open source, the
size of the community is perhaps the single most important factor, for
many obvious reasons.

The most successful of the projects I mentioned above had one thing in
common--they had something akin to the "specializations repository"
mentioned below.  There were many variations in how it was done, however.

There are many second order benefits to this.  Specializations that
become very popular often end up migrating (in some form) to the core.
After all, open source users vote with their feet.

We could start very simply by having a "specializations" page on the docbook
wiki that includes a set of links.  Having the ability to upload
a zip file containing the package would be nice.  Bigger packages
could live on sourceforge.  The specializations page could be more than
a list; it could include a couple of guidelines, best practices, etc.

If someone with privileges would create such a page, I would be willing
to contribute to it (a) draft1 of some guidelines and (b) a first example
package.

Oh-- we might need two wiki areas.  I am only talking about Docbook5.
Some other motivated person will have to take the lead for Docbook < 5.
:-)

Regards,

--Craeg



>> Would it makes sense to provide customization developers a best
>> practices guide, and a "DocBook Specializations Repository" where people
>> could contribute their customized schemas and stylesheets to handle
>> specific requirements, by metier for example?
>
> This idea is worth, but is there anyone who can devote his/her free time
> for this project? Or fund development of such guide and repository?
>