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

[Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>]

On 3 February 2011 09:53, Nic Gibson <nicg@corbas.net> wrote:

> 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.

That is exactly what is covered by tdg :-)
http://www.docbook.org/tdg51/en/html/ch05.html#s-notdocbook



 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'?

I doubt this was raised when Norm (IIRC) developed website
(and slides?) for his own use, then publicised them.

website has a different document element, as does slides,
just that they use a customization layer on top of docbook.

Which may point to a similar route for db-pubs as being
a previously trodden one?

Customization for the schema/stylseheets, relying
on the base infrastructure of docbook for support.

Shouting "This is not docbook" is possibly 4 on your list Nic,
as per tdg, but it doesn't get us very far in terms of usage
and clarity when using docbook tools.

With this logic, I could be swayed towards 1) above?

regards


-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk