Subject: Re: [docbook] Ruminations on the future of DocBook
On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 07:33:41PM +0100, Dave Pawson wrote: > Another perspective on this is that they are (programming language > specific) extension elements? > Which could be viewed as being out of scope of the base layer. > > Perhaps markup could be 'really semantic' if each language added its own > extensions and processing > (or mapping to common styling). > My question then is, would that level of semantic markup be valuable in > usage? Um, isn't that the whole point of DocBook? If that level of semantic markup (which exists today), then why aren't people marking up their class documentation with <literal> and <emphasis>? (Or are they?) > I have this nasty suspicion that many... some... a few > users, chose docbook because: > 1. Its XML (durable) > 2. Produces HTML and print. > and the elements used are to [some... large..] extent chosen based on the > output? > I could be wrong. I don't understand your concern. Are you inferring that namespaced extensions to DocBook *wouldn't* have a canonical display in HTML/Print? If that's the issue, it's easily solvable. The Scheme world won't accept an extension to the language without a reference implementation. Extensions to DocBook could be adopted only when there's a schema, XSLT customization layers, and documentation on the tags, content models and extensions to the base format. As a foundation vocabulary, DocBook and it's core stylesheets would still be immensely useful: hard things like tables and chunking would always be available via the core format. Z.