Re: [docbook-tc] DocBook Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 20 April 2011

[Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>]

"Bob Stayton" <bobs@sagehill.net> writes:
> 6.  Publishers Schema promotion
>
> a. Add to docbook.org.
>
> Scott wanted to create a flattened single-file version of
> the Publishers schema, but was not successful.
> Otherwise we will have to create a zip file for all the modules.
> Jirka suggests that he can do it.
>
> ACTION: Jirka to create single file Publishers schema.

I'm pretty sure I did that already. I'm trying to clean up the whole
schema part of the tree (I've secretly forked it off to github, but
that's food for a different discussion.)

> c.  Documentation
>
> The Publishers Schema should be added to DocBook: The Definitive
> Guide. Nancy wonders where it should appear and how it
> should be presented.  Maybe we should write a separate
> article too.
>
> ACTION: Bob to query Norm about adding Publishers Schema to TDG.

I've bumped against this before. I'd like, for example, to be able to
make a TDG-style document for the slides and websites schemas.

I'll poke at it a little.

> 7.  Simplified DocBook 5
>
> Scott suggested we needed driver file to define it and
> a means to create a flattened schema file.
>
> Nancy: are there any changes in DocBook 5 that affect Simplified?
>
> Bob: continue to only support article, not book?
> Since we have Publishers for books, we can keep
> Simplified with just article.  We should keep
> it close to the version based on DocBook 4.5.
>
> ACTION: Bob to send note to Norm asking if he can create
> a Simplified DocBook 5 schema. Scott said he could help.

I've done that, I think.

[...]
> Dick was wondering if assembly could be generalized
> beyond DocBook for use by other schemas.  Larry
> said some DocBook specific elements would need
> to be modified.
>
> When the schema and stylesheets are available, Scott said
> he could do some experimental work with converting content.

That's clearly out of scope. If it turns out to be possible and
useful, fantastic, but I'll be very reluctant (personally) to bend
things just to achieve that end.

>    New RFEs    3227210  missing attributes for informaltable (html)  
>
> Approved.
>
>      3274136  Production markup is too limiting

Wash this one discussed?

>    3287339  Add ISTC
> to class attribute for biblioid 
>
> ACTION: Bob to investigate ISTC and report to the TC.

It's an ISO standard and all we need to do is add a class attribute value,
so I can't imagine there'll be grounds for rejecting this one.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>      | When a book and a head collide and
http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | there is a hollow sound, is it
Chair, DocBook Technical Committee | always the book?-- Lichtenberg

PGP signature