Re: DOCBOOK: objection to docbook.dcl

[Adam Di Carlo <adam@onshore.com>]

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> writes:

> / Adam Di Carlo <adam@onshore.com> was heard to say:
> | accept.  The unnecessarily broad divergance of the shipped Docbook
> | declaration puts a burden on document engineers using DocBook.
> 
> This whole problem is probably the result of documentation errors on
> my part. The declaration shipped with DocBook is advisory and was
> never intended to be normative: the documentation should state that
> clearly.
> 
> There's no reason why you should use it if your software behaves
> better with a different declaration.

Yes, I've disabled it for the Debian distribution.  However, it
*appears* normative in that the docbook.cat file ships with it turned
on via the DTDDECL (understood by OpenJade but not Jade).

I guess in short my recommendation would become that that DTDDECL in
the shipped docbook.dcl be turned off, with perhaps an explanatory
comment there what its for.

> Is this workaround being accomplished by editing the file that
> purports to be ISOcyr1.ent from ISO 8879? Yuck! Please give those
> modified entity sets a different public identifier and store them
> somewhere else

I'll take that under advisement.  Something is clearly not right.  The
problem -- you might recall this -- is regarding SDATA entities not
understood by jade or openjade.  It might be best just to try to fix
Jade.

-- 
.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onshore.com.....<URL:http://www.onshored.com/>