Thread: DocBook V4.2
We have planned several times to move to a new DocBook version, but always postponed it. I'd like to get it done this time. We are now beginning to run into trouble with the established toolchain (particularly for print output), and there isn't much new development happening, so I'd like to start trying out XML-based toolchains. To do that, we need to move to a DocBook version that is available as both SGML (processed by OpenJade) and XML, which is the case for 4.x. We can convert SGML to XML automatically, so there are no syntax implications. Comments? -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
> We are now beginning to run into trouble with the established toolchain > (particularly for print output), and there isn't much new development > happening, so I'd like to start trying out XML-based toolchains. To do > that, we need to move to a DocBook version that is available as both SGML > (processed by OpenJade) and XML, which is the case for 4.x. We can > convert SGML to XML automatically, so there are no syntax implications. I've had good luck processing XML through both toolchains, and would find it VERY useful if there was the ability to quickly pull in PostgreSQL content into other in-house documents via an XMLInclude rather than a hacked checkout, file munge, etc. I vote for having valid XML in the system itself with each file having a valid DTD specification. This has the added benefit of allowing an XSL transform to function on a single document fairly easily which enables people such as Josh who don't normally write documentation to quickly validate their changes with nothing but a webbrowser, a very short set of instructions, and the URL to the docbook XSLs. -- Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca> PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc
Attachment
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> We have planned several times to move to a new DocBook version, but always
> postponed it. I'd like to get it done this time.
> Comments?
What are the implications (ie, how much work will this take)?
regards, tom lane
What do I need to install? On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > We have planned several times to move to a new DocBook version, but always > postponed it. I'd like to get it done this time. > > We are now beginning to run into trouble with the established toolchain > (particularly for print output), and there isn't much new development > happening, so I'd like to start trying out XML-based toolchains. To do > that, we need to move to a DocBook version that is available as both SGML > (processed by OpenJade) and XML, which is the case for 4.x. We can > convert SGML to XML automatically, so there are no syntax implications. > > Comments? > > -- > Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html > Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy Systems Administrator @ hub.org primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
Le Lundi 16 Juin 2003 14:51, vous avez écrit : > We have planned several times to move to a new DocBook version, but always > postponed it. I'd like to get it done this time. > > We are now beginning to run into trouble with the established toolchain > (particularly for print output), and there isn't much new development > happening, so I'd like to start trying out XML-based toolchains. To do > that, we need to move to a DocBook version that is available as both SGML > (processed by OpenJade) and XML, which is the case for 4.x. We can > convert SGML to XML automatically, so there are no syntax implications. > > Comments? I think it would be great news. XML Docbook is much easier to "read" and understand. For example, it is of great value to a translator. I've translated many howtos from the LDP and some guides. SGML Docbook is a good wey to format a document, but XML is a much better one. And it allows anyone to apply really simple xslt stylesheets with xsltproc (or saboltron or something else). Doing it with DSSSL stylesheets is really hard. I'm in the process to create a french translation team and would be really interested if all documents could be move to an XML docbook format. And I could help you, if you need, to speed up the move. By the way, if any french people here are interested in translating postgresql documents (manuals, faqs and techdocs) in french, please get in touch with me. Thanks. -- Guillaume <!-- http://absfr.tuxfamily.org/ -->.
Can we still do <tag>text</> or do we need to spell out the full close tag with </tag>? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Guillaume LELARGE wrote: > Le Lundi 16 Juin 2003 14:51, vous avez ?crit : > > We have planned several times to move to a new DocBook version, but always > > postponed it. I'd like to get it done this time. > > > > We are now beginning to run into trouble with the established toolchain > > (particularly for print output), and there isn't much new development > > happening, so I'd like to start trying out XML-based toolchains. To do > > that, we need to move to a DocBook version that is available as both SGML > > (processed by OpenJade) and XML, which is the case for 4.x. We can > > convert SGML to XML automatically, so there are no syntax implications. > > > > Comments? > I think it would be great news. XML Docbook is much easier to "read" and > understand. For example, it is of great value to a translator. I've > translated many howtos from the LDP and some guides. SGML Docbook is a good > wey to format a document, but XML is a much better one. And it allows anyone > to apply really simple xslt stylesheets with xsltproc (or saboltron or > something else). Doing it with DSSSL stylesheets is really hard. > > I'm in the process to create a french translation team and would be really > interested if all documents could be move to an XML docbook format. And I > could help you, if you need, to speed up the move. > > By the way, if any french people here are interested in translating postgresql > documents (manuals, faqs and techdocs) in french, please get in touch with > me. > > Thanks. > > > -- > Guillaume <!-- http://absfr.tuxfamily.org/ -->. > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Tom Lane writes: > What are the implications (ie, how much work will this take)? The work (various markup adjustments) has already been posted as a patch by someone else many moons ago, so I assume the work will be minimal. Users will have to install a new DocBook package, which won't be too hard if you already have 3.1 working. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
Bruce Momjian writes: > Can we still do <tag>text</> or do we need to spell out the full close > tag with </tag>? We're not converting the sources to XML (in which which case you would need to spell out the tags), only allowing for automatic conversion from SGML to XML. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
Rod Taylor writes: > I vote for having valid XML in the system itself with each file having a > valid DTD specification. This is impossible, unless you want to give up on linking. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 18:08, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Rod Taylor writes: > > > I vote for having valid XML in the system itself with each file having a > > valid DTD specification. > > This is impossible, unless you want to give up on linking. No, not give up on linking, but change the inclusions to be based on an XML include format rather than ENTITY based inclusions. Since XML includes are node based, you can include all content between and including the top node or some sub-structure within the XML, DTDs may be present within each file. -- Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca> PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc