Subject: Re: [docbook] DTD from extended RNC
On 21 May 2018 at 14:42, maxwell <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > On 2018-05-21 08:17, Dave Pawson wrote: >> >> Anything you can do with a DTD you can do with rng/rnc. > > > But surely not in the opposite direction, correct? Which is presumably why > trang is complaining. Yes, rng is more recent / comprehensive than DTD's. > > FWIW, we had an analogous problem: we want to produce PDFs from XML > documents about linguistics. We chose DocBook as the base, and got rid of a > ton of things in the RNG/RNC that were irrelevant to our use case, then > added a few that we needed for linguistics. The authors of our linguistics > books use XMLmind (XXE), which I see someone else suggested. But you prefer > to stay with emacs, which is understandable. I myself use a programmer's > editor, but it doesn't do any schema validation (it does check for > well-formed XML); so I post-validate against the schema. Likewise. James Clarks original was syntax directed. I can't get that to work with the emacs version. If you want comprehensive syntax directed, oXygen is (IMHO) the best way to go. Do your transforms within the editor too. > > BTW, we looked into the usual XML-to-PDF via XSL stylesheets, and decided > they were not sufficient for our needs (right-to-left scripts embedded in > left-to-right text, complex scripts,...). Instead we use dblatex (not to be > confused with the older db2latex), which as the name suggests produces a > latex format, then use (xe)latex to produce the PDF. This of course also > needed modifications for our linguistic use case. There is one xsl-fo to PDF that might work for you, but it is pricy. HTH -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. Docbook FAQ.