[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xliff] Low importance: Do we have to have the schemas embedded in the specification?
I just want to provide some background on my efforts to generate artifacts from the specification.
As Yves points out, I've been able to generate the schema files from the specification text, ensuring consistency between spec and schema. Also generated are the non-normative schema listings and tree diagrams that are incorporated in the spec, also ensuring consistency and saving editing time (assuming the links are generated properly). One key limitation is that it's programmed in OmniMark, which is a powerful language but proprietary and expensive. Also I've needed a few, shall we say, pragmatic retrogressions to make it work.
Ideally this process should be rewritten in XSLT. We would need additional attributes in the DocBook source files, a minor editorial impact, and rationalizing the ID attribute values would resolve the problem of generating links. Integration into the build process should be possible, making it completely seamless. This would be worth doing, whether or not we include schema listings in the spec. (I would also like to propose generating the tree diagrams as SVG, but that's a topic for another day.)
I think this is a question for the broader community
Implementers on the TC but also people like Spartans, Phil Ritchie, SDL, Multicorpora etc.
As editor I would be happy to get rid of this potential source of inconsistency.
However as you say the current listing are generated.
And I have to manage stage specific links anyways, so this does not save much in editing effort and IF people are using them for reading convenience, as intended, we should probably keep them...
No strong opinion here, happy to remove the listings if we hear from users that they are not using them..
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Yves Savourel <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: