DOCBOOK: Re: objection to docbook.dcl

[Karl Eichwalder <keichwa@gmx.net>]

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, for authoring purposes.  Nevertheless you'll have to distribute a
SGML declaration.  Otherwise it's impossible to say what's a valid DocBook
SGML document and what's not.  IIRC, the "defaults" are rather
restrictive (I'll have to re-read the Handbook, though).

> The docbook.dcl file was designed with the goal that any document that
> validated against it could be safely exchanged.

Yes and that's a point to respect.  For more info please read the
documentation coming with TEI.

[BTW, that's why a centralized CATALOG will not work as long as DTDDECL
or DELEGATE isn't in wide spread use and supported by software.  For
every single SGML document (TEI, DocBook, HTML) you've to use the right
SGML declaration.]

-- 
work : ke@suse.de                          |                   ,__o
     : http://www.suse.de/~ke/             |                 _-\_<,
home : keichwa@gmx.net                     |                (*)/'(*)