Re: [docbook-tc] Version reference for DocBook Publishers documents?

[Nic Gibson <nicg@corbas.net>]

On 3 Feb 2011, at 09:32, Dave Pawson wrote:

> On 1 February 2011 18:24, Scott Hudson <scott.hudson@pelco.com> wrote:
> 
>> How shall DocBook Publishers documents be versioned? Should it be similar to
>> simplified, such that:
>> 
>> 5.0-extension publishers-1.0
> 
> I've always expected the version to be numeric Scott?
> Equally, is @version used anywhere such that it would
> make it clear that I am processing pubs rather than
> plain docbook?
> 

I'd agree that version should normally be numeric but, apart from namespace how else do we identify this?

> 
>> 
>> It is not a true subset of DocBook 5.0, due to the additions of Dublin Core,
>> speaker, line, linegroup, drama, dialogue, and poetry.
> 
> 
> For which TDG is clear. "Don't call it docbook"
> Bit late now, but renaming the document element
> to x-pubs, where x is book/article/... perhaps?


This is exactly where my concern came from.  I think that renaming the document element would possibly be too much - it would break support in too many tools (for example, Oxygen recognizes DocBook by, amongst other things, the document element) and would complicate the DocBook XSLT.

> 
> Or simpler, just give it a clear / different name,
> then use docbook ns etc?

I wasn't involved in DocBook Publishers from the beginning - was a new namespace considered for the new elements?

> 
> First time for docbook I guess.

I think there possibly needs to be a different set of decisions here. Right now, we have the TDG guidelines. Those make perfect sense for something that originates outside of the DocBook infrastructure as it were. What appears to be needed is a way to identify an official variant on DocBook in a way that makes it clear that it isn't DocBook but is an official and public variant.  There are three possible ways to identify this as far as I can see

1) A new root element
2) A namespace for the new elements (what about the modified elements?)
3) A new version

I think that 3) is the least destructive. 

> Is website a fair comparison?

I think it probably is. How is website 'identified'?

nic

> 
> regards
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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