OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

docbook-tc message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [docbook-tc] DocBook 5.0 Errata update

Can we test this first, to make sure it actually solves the problem? I'd hate to wait until the end and find out we still have issues…




From: <docbook-tc@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Bob Stayton <bobs@sagehill.net>
Date: Friday, April 13, 2018 at 10:58 AM
To: DocBook Technical Committee <docbook-tc@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [docbook-tc] DocBook 5.0 Errata update


In an unfortunately sequence of events, Jirka Kosek has discovered that the fix we were going to apply to DocBook 5.0 for the change in Schematron rules won't work.  His mail below (which did not reach the TC because he is no longer a member) describes how the update of Schematron also changed the namespace name, so adding s:title in the old namespace is simply wrong.  He suggests that we instead create a 5.0.1 release with the correct updated Schematron namespace and rules, and leave 5.0 alone as working with legacy Schematron.  Then users would have a choice.

I contacted Chet Ensign of OASIS about rescinding an Errata, and he said that is not possible. Once something becomes an OASIS Standard, it is permanent.  He said we could publish a correction on the OASIS site about the Errata being wrong and the Errata URL could point to the correction first.  I think that is sufficient for 5.0.

I don't want to wait until the next meeting to start on this.  I suggest we develop a 5.0.1 Committee Specification and pursue that as a new OASIS Standard.   Comments?

Bob Stayton
Sagehill Enterprises
On 14.3.2018 19:25, Scott Hudson wrote:
for the RNG fix (issue 88), the TC voted to fix the problem in-place to minimize versioning issues and to fix the problem.
Can you please make the appropriate change in-place?

Hi Scott, what looked like a simple change actually turned into opening can of worms.

First -- the https://github.com/docbook/docbook/issues/88 is wrong -- DocBook schemas for V5.0 are using older Schematron namespace where @name attribute should be used instead of title subelement. So we shouldn't be changing @name to title without changing Schematron namespace as well.

So one way how to deal with this issue is to simply close it and respond with information that DocBook V5.0 schemas are using (now) legacy version of Schematron where usage of @name attribute is correct.

Another possibility is to generate new schemas for V5.0 that would use the newest ISO Schematron -- including new namespace and title element instead of @name. I was trying quickly generate such schemas as it should be pretty straightforward -- Norm recently created special branch https://github.com/docbook/docbook/tree/docbook50-rewind that should hold historical copy of V5.0. Although I have been able to build from this branch the problem is that generated schema is definitively not V5.0 -- content models show that this is some historical snapshot of V5.1.

So if we want to provide V5.0 schemas with updated Schematron namespace the easiest would be to change existing V5.0 release manually. If we decide to release such schema I strongly suggest making this V5.0.1 version and publish it at a new URL. Changing Schematron namespace could potentially break some existing pipelines.

I'm CCing Norm and TC as well to get insights from the whole group.

Cheers, Jirka

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]