atom feed14 messages in org.oasis-open.lists.docbook-tcRe: [docbook-tc] Version reference fo...
FromSent OnAttachments
Scott HudsonFeb 1, 2011 10:24 am 
Dave PawsonFeb 3, 2011 1:32 am 
Nic GibsonFeb 3, 2011 1:53 am 
Dave PawsonFeb 3, 2011 2:37 am 
Nic GibsonFeb 3, 2011 2:53 am 
Scott HudsonFeb 3, 2011 7:43 am 
Jirka KosekFeb 8, 2011 5:15 am 
Dave PawsonFeb 8, 2011 5:21 am 
Jirka KosekFeb 8, 2011 8:18 am 
Dave PawsonFeb 8, 2011 8:28 am 
Nic GibsonFeb 8, 2011 8:43 am 
Jirka KosekFeb 8, 2011 9:56 am 
Dave PawsonFeb 8, 2011 11:45 pm 
Jirka KosekFeb 17, 2011 4:32 am 
Subject:Re: [docbook-tc] Version reference for DocBook Publishers documents?
From:Scott Hudson (scot@pelco.com)
Date:Feb 3, 2011 7:43:07 am
List:org.oasis-open.lists.docbook-tc

Dave, et al,

The Publishers schema IS an official work of the DocBook TC, so the argument that "it's not DocBook" is incorrect.

According to http://www.docbook.org/docs/howto/#cust-naming the version is NOT float value, nor an integer, but it is a version string. As the Publishers schema is not a true subset, but does extend some markup models, I think either extension or variant are appropriate. So again, I offer:

"5.0-extension publishers-1.0"

The namespace should not change, as it is officially docbook, and the stylesheets from the standard distribution should work on this schema (especially with the contributions from Nic!).

Since website and slides are not official work products, I don't think it's a fair comparison for publishers. The spec has been approved, so the root element cannot be changed. It's more akin to simplified, except that content models are extended.

Thanks and best regards,

--Scott

On 2/3/11 3:54 AM, "Nic Gibson" <ni@corbas.net> wrote:

On 3 Feb 2011, at 10:37, Dave Pawson wrote:

On 3 February 2011 09:53, Nic Gibson <ni@corbas.net> wrote:

I think there possibly needs to be a different set of decisions here. Right now, we have the TDG guidelines. Those make perfect sense for something that originates outside of the DocBook infrastructure as it were. What appears to be needed is a way to identify an official variant on DocBook in a way that makes it clear that it isn't DocBook but is an official and public variant.

That is exactly what is covered by tdg :-) http://www.docbook.org/tdg51/en/html/ch05.html#s-notdocbook

I take your point :) By those guidelines we should be using a new version 'number' that looks something like:

"5.0-extension publishers-1.0"

(or possibly "5.0-variant publishers-1.0")

I think that slightly misses the point that I'm trying to make though - DocBook Publishers has an official 'DocBook-ness' in an way that (say) the DocBook 4.3 variants I've created for a set of biochemistry texts didn't have - those were done for a specific publisher and had a public identifier that indicated that.

Given that there are now two special purpose DocBook sub-committees, I'd like to see something that indicates that closer relationship with DocBook. Perhaps that's just wishful thinking on my part, though.

There are three possible ways to identify this as far as I can see

1) A new root element 2) A namespace for the new elements (what about the modified elements?) 3) A new version

I think that 3) is the least destructive.

Is website a fair comparison?

I think it probably is. How is website 'identified'?

I doubt this was raised when Norm (IIRC) developed website (and slides?) for his own use, then publicised them.

website has a different document element, as does slides, just that they use a customization layer on top of docbook.

Which may point to a similar route for db-pubs as being a previously trodden one?

Customization for the schema/stylseheets, relying on the base infrastructure of docbook for support.

Shouting "This is not docbook" is possibly 4 on your list Nic, as per tdg, but it doesn't get us very far in terms of usage and clarity when using docbook tools.

That's why I didn't add it - I don't see that it gets us anywhere useful.

With this logic, I could be swayed towards 1) above?

I'm not convinced that it gets us anywhere useful but I think that the precedent of website and slides is worth considering.

regards