[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [docbook-apps] DocBook Customization
Scott, Good points. I'm a firm fan of DocBook and think it can do anything that DITA can (and more). But, if anyone on the list has the chops to do a DITA XSL: The Definitive Guide, let me know; I think it's needed and I'd like to publish it. Dick Hamilton --------------------------------- XML Press XML for Technical Communicators http://xmlpress.net (970) 231-3624 > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Hudson [mailto:scott.hudson@flatironssolutions.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 7:23 PM > To: Bob Stayton > Cc: Eric Johnson; DocBook Apps ML > Subject: Re: [docbook-apps] DocBook Customization > > > If you want to "start" with a simplified version of DocBook, > you should > check out the Simplified DocBook DTD or the new Publishers > schema. These > are "official" customizations that minimize the number of elements. > > With the proposed Modular DocBook addition to the standard (likely > v5.1), there soon will be a way to more easily work at a topic level > while remaining in DocBook compliance. > > I second Eric's opinion that there is no DITA XSL: The > Complete Guide, > so the customization for DITA is much more challenging! > > Best regards, > > --Scott > > Bob Stayton wrote: > > Hi Eric, > > My impression is that many groups adopt DITA because they > want to work > > in topics rather than chapters. Then they do whatever is > needed to use > > DITA to write topics. I have been in contact with more than > one group > > that has adopted DITA without any DTD customization. As > you say, people > > often do crazy things. 8^) > > > > One common DocBook customization practice is to cut down on > the number > > of elements. There are several reasons why: > > > > a. When using an XML editor that presents a list of valid > tag names, > > the list can be quite long in many contexts (such as > inlines). Many > > such elements are never to be used, so remove them from sight. > > > > b. Reducing ambiguity in choosing among similar elements. > > > > c. Reducing the complexity of a stylesheet customization. > If you know > > you are only supporting certain elements you don't need to have > > templates for all elements. > > > > d. Reduce the complexity of the para element by removing > block element > > children (making it like simpara). > > > > It is possible to make a subset that still produces documents that > > validate with the full DocBook schema. But of course not > the other way > > around. > > > > In terms of the cost of customization, I have found customizing the > > DocBook 4 DTD to be easier than customizing the DITA DTDs. > In DITA's > > DTDs, everything is a twice-removed parameter entity, and > it is hard to > > keep track of where an element is actually declared and > what children it > > can contain. DocBook 4 uses parameter entities, but not to such a > > complex degree. DocBook 5's RelaxNG grammar is even easier to > > customize, once you learn the grammar. > > > > Bob Stayton > > Sagehill Enterprises > > bobs@sagehill.net <mailto:bobs@sagehill.net> > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Eric Johnson <mailto:EMJOHNSO@progress.com> > > *To:* DocBook Apps ML <mailto:docbook-apps@lists.oasis-open.org> > > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 19, 2009 5:11 AM > > *Subject:* [docbook-apps] DocBook Customization > > > > I was talking to someone last night and they mentioned that the > > biggest use case, and the one that is causing everyone > to flock to > > DITA, for using DocBook is to take the schema and then > customize it. > > > > My first reaction was to think "That's completely > crazy. This person > > is obviously just a DITA cultist and seeing the world > through tinted > > lenses." Then the cynic in me piped up and said "People often do > > crazy things." > > > > Is this a big use case in the DocBook world? Do > organizations start > > with standard DocBook and then tweak it around to make some > > customized version of the schema that is no longer DocBook? > > > > Why would an organization customize DocBook instead of > adopting DITA > > which is built with the (almost) requirement that it be > customized? > > > > What is the cost of doing the customization? > > One of the reasons my group adopted DocBook was that > the schema did > > not need to be customized. We had to create a few > guidelines around > > using certain tags, but that was much easier than modifying the > > schema. Perhaps in larger groups using the schema to > enforce rules > > is more desirable. > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-apps-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org > For additional commands, e-mail: > docbook-apps-help@lists.oasis-open.org > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]