[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [docbook-tc] DocBook namespace use policy
(delurking). Hi all. On 16 Nov 2010, at 13:17, Dave Pawson wrote: > On 16 November 2010 12:50, Nancy Harrison <nancylph@gmail.com> wrote: >> I'd be even more specific about the implications > +1 > > As Jirka said, the implications are when a user lets his db source go free in > the wild? Just the same as mixing no-namespaced elements, lots of room > for confusion, hence not a good idea. > > Again the positive is: > If you're going to add your own elements/atts, add them in your own > (or any ns other than db). > I'm with Scott et al on this. I really think it needs to be a very definite statement. The DocBook ecosystem is large enough that there are definite expectations of what is DocBook. Obviously, validating against a DocBook schema is one way to say that document X is 'of DocBook' but the namespace is going to be a way to say that too (and in many environments, the only or primary way). I think the statement needs to be explicit on the lines of "you may add elements to the DocBook namespace for internal use if you must. However, it always better to use your own namespace and essential to do so if documents employing these elements could reach beyond your organisation". nic > > DaveP > > >> >> - n >> >> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 3:13 AM, Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 15 November 2010 23:23, Bob Stayton <bobs@sagehill.net> wrote: >>>> One of my DocBook TC action items was to state a policy regarding the >>>> use of >>>> the DocBook namespace. Here is the wording I would suggest. >>>> >>>> "The DocBook TC does not prohibit users from adding new elements to the >>>> DocBook namespace (http://docbook.org/ns/docbook). However, such new >>>> elements are not part of the DocBook standard unless they are approved >>>> by >>>> the DocBook Technical Committee." >>>> >>>> Do we need to say more? >>> >>> >>> That's phrased in the negative Bob? Might be clear and easier to use >>> as a policy if phrased positively? >>> >>> Users may add elements and attributes to the db schema but be aware >>> that these are not docbook. >>> Docbook is defined as those elements and attributes in the docbook >>> namespace >>> which are defined by the docbook TC. >> >> Users may add elements and attributes to the db schema but should be aware >> that these are not part of standard DocBook and will not be supported by the >> DocBook >> stylesheets at SourceForge. >> Docbook is defined as those elements and attributes in the docbook namespace >> which are defined by the docbook TC. >> >>> >>> HTH >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dave Pawson >>> XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. >>> Docbook FAQ. >>> http://www.dpawson.co.uk >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >>> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: >>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> _____________ >> Nancy Harrison >> Infobridge Solutions >> nharrison@infobridge-solutions.com >> > > > > -- > Dave Pawson > XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. > Docbook FAQ. > http://www.dpawson.co.uk > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > -- Nic Gibson Corbas Consulting Digital Publishing Consultancy and Training http://www.corbas.co.uk, +44 (0)7718 906817
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]