Re: Book split to several books

Re: Book split to several books

[Norman Walsh]

/ Peter Toft <pto@sslug.dk> was heard to say:
| I have looked into using <part> which presumably
| enables me to keep correct cross-references, but I
| really would like to compile the sub-books
| individually now - currently it takes too much time to 
| make PS, PDF, and HTML.
| 
| Any clues on how to proceed in splitting books in
| practice could help. 

The DSSSL stylesheets support OLink which can help you do this.
See http://nwalsh.com/docbook/dsssl/doc/olinksemantics.html

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | A man is not necessarily intelligent
http://nwalsh.com/            | because he has plenty of ideas, any
                              | more than he is a good general because
                              | he has plenty of soldiers.--Chamfort

Re: Book split to several books

[Peter Toft]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Eric Lee Green wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Peter Toft wrote:
> > Now I have to split the book into 4-5 parts, but I like
> > feedback on how to do this in an optimal way. My
> > problem is that I have many cross-references which will
> > suffer from the split. 
> > 
> > I have looked into using <part> which presumably
> > enables me to keep correct cross-references, but I
> > really would like to compile the sub-books
> > individually now - currently it takes too much time to 
> > make PS, PDF, and HTML.
> 
> Unfortunately your two goals (seperate compilation, extensive cross-references)
> are incompatible. Splitting your document into parts or multiple files on disk
> is easy enough -- "Docbook -- The Definitive Guide" tells you how to do that

Agree - no problem - I have 13 files at the moment.

> within the first few pages.  But if you want cross-references, or a common
> index, well, the document processing system is going to have to chew through
> each of the documents to find all of those references. 

Hrrm - my idea could be that book-A makes a summary
file, book-B the same .... and book-N can use check
cross-references to the other books by reading these 
summary files (with the relevant labels) - which then
have to be available.

It could be cool, that book-N automatically could have

Take a look into <xref linkend="hardcoreLinux">

being expanded to 

Take a look into the book "Peter Toft; Linux for the
cool dudez - section 3.1"

if the label hardcoreLinux is found in book-A

BR

-- 
Peter Toft, Ph.D. [pto@sslug.dk] http://www.sslug.dk/~pto

"You don't win a battle by asking, `Will we win?' 
You win it by doing your best to win"
- Richard M Stallman

----> Visit http://petition.eurolinux.org <---

Re: Book split to several books

[Peter Toft]

On 17 Jul 2000, Norman Walsh wrote:

> / Peter Toft <pto@sslug.dk> was heard to say:
> | I have looked into using <part> which presumably
> | enables me to keep correct cross-references, but I
> | really would like to compile the sub-books
> | individually now - currently it takes too much time to 
> | make PS, PDF, and HTML.
> | 
> | Any clues on how to proceed in splitting books in
> | practice could help. 
> 
> The DSSSL stylesheets support OLink which can help you do this.
> See http://nwalsh.com/docbook/dsssl/doc/olinksemantics.html

I have read that page a few times now - and still have
not figured out how to do the very simple olinks (no
cgi - I know all URL's in advance).

Could you be more specific?




-- 
Peter Toft, Ph.D. [pto@sslug.dk] http://www.sslug.dk/~pto

"You don't win a battle by asking, `Will we win?' 
You win it by doing your best to win"
- Richard M Stallman

----> Visit http://petition.eurolinux.org <---

Book split to several books

[Peter Toft]

Aaah it seems that the storm has cleared up, and the
little guys can ask tech questions again ... :)

I have been using Docbook for two years now - been
writing the largest Danish Linux book using
Docbook. Many people (>150) have helped this project,
so the result is that the book now is 350 pages if I
cut all margins to a minimum. It is too big IMHO.

Now I have to split the book into 4-5 parts, but I like
feedback on how to do this in an optimal way. My
problem is that I have many cross-references which will
suffer from the split. 

I have looked into using <part> which presumably
enables me to keep correct cross-references, but I
really would like to compile the sub-books
individually now - currently it takes too much time to 
make PS, PDF, and HTML.

Any clues on how to proceed in splitting books in
practice could help. 


BR

-- 
Peter Toft, Ph.D. [pto@sslug.dk] http://www.sslug.dk/~pto

"You don't win a battle by asking, `Will we win?' 
You win it by doing your best to win"
- Richard M Stallman

----> Visit http://petition.eurolinux.org <---

Re: Book split to several books

[Eric Lee Green]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Peter Toft wrote:
> Now I have to split the book into 4-5 parts, but I like
> feedback on how to do this in an optimal way. My
> problem is that I have many cross-references which will
> suffer from the split. 
> 
> I have looked into using <part> which presumably
> enables me to keep correct cross-references, but I
> really would like to compile the sub-books
> individually now - currently it takes too much time to 
> make PS, PDF, and HTML.

Unfortunately your two goals (seperate compilation, extensive cross-references)
are incompatible. Splitting your document into parts or multiple files on disk
is easy enough -- "Docbook -- The Definitive Guide" tells you how to do that
within the first few pages.  But if you want cross-references, or a common
index, well, the document processing system is going to have to chew through
each of the documents to find all of those references. 

What you might do is, for review and prototyping purposes, allow some danging
cross references (that is, build a "stub" document that includes only one part
of the big document), and keep the global overall framework for when you want
to create the "real" document w/ full index and cross references. 

BTW, I probably won't be requesting much help here in the future. My manager
has now forbidden all Docbook SGML use in our company, saying that it's "too
obscure" and "too difficult for managers to access" .  I've requested a pilot
study to see whether a common word processing program (StarOffice 5.2, a MS
Word look-alike) will actually do everything we've been doing with Docbook, but
I don't hold much hope that this pilot study will save Docbook -- the
advantages of structured editing aren't obvious enough for managers (who rarely
write large documents) to see. WIthout there being a brain dead word processing
look alike front-end on a cross-platform basis so that idiot managers can use
it on their Winblows lap-tops and Linux workstations alike, Docbook is
basically dead in our company.  

-- 
Eric Lee Green      There is No Conspiracy
eric@badtux.org     http://www.badtux.org