From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jorge Godoy To: Eric Bischoff Cc: docbook-tools-discuss@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: Evolution of the DocBook tools Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:36:00 -0000 Message-id: <20000224121038.Z24290@conectiva.com.br> References: <951281049.19725.ezmlm@sourceware.cygnus.com> <20000223085415.B611@ciberia.es> <38B3ABD6.71623993@cybercable.tm.fr> <38B40C05.FD198BAE@cybercable.tm.fr> <38B533C6.C543446A@cybercable.tm.fr> X-SW-Source: 2000/msg00093.html On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 02:36:06PM +0100, Eric Bischoff wrote: > Jorge Godoy wrote: > > > > IMHO, if we want not interfere with the stylesheets used and want tro > > allow a generic use of these tools, there are few alternatives: > > > > - Using the CATALOG directive > > - Using the DELEGATE directive > > - Merging CATALOG files (would require that we _change_ the specified > > paths!) > > - plus a fourth one, letting db2* scripts determine where are the > catalogs (my solution) How to find them? They are named: - catalog - CATALOG - anything.cat - put your catalog name here... > Among the first three ones, only the first one is really good, IMHO. > > The third one was chosen by the current DocBook-tools and implied a > dirty directory layout if you don't want to re-work the paths. And this > had bad consequences if you wanted to use alternate stylesheets. That was what I said... :-) > > Which programs don't recognize the CATALOG keyword? Jade and OpenJade > > work with no problems. Programs that don't work aren't in accordance > > with the specifications. Should we support them or "brake" them and > > make the author improve their programs? > > Now I remember Epic does not recognize this keyword. Hmmm... I didn't know it. The question is the same: force them to be compliant with the specs or make a workaround? Workareounds are dangerous... We'll have to make it for every program that's not compliant with it... > Why don't you put the stylesheets at the same level as the dtd ? it > allows to change the stylesheets version, without changing the dtd, in a > simpler way (there are more stylesheet versions than dtd ones). Wait... What stylesheets are you talking about? I have another directory that I forgot listing: /usr/lib/sgml - modular-stylesheets which is Norm's modular stylesheets. If this is the stylesheets you are talking about, it's already done. > Docbook DTD and stylesheets numbering is a really good idea, indeed. It > looks like you went even further in the reflexion than I did ;-). What > about making a symbolic link from the generic name to the numbered name > ? Like : docbook-dtd -> docbook-dtd-4.0beta. I don't think it's a good idea and it isn't even needed. The declaration at the beginning of the document specifies what to use and the catalogs do the rest of the magic. > Iso-entities are not only needed by sgmltools 1.09, but by jade as well. > Maybe you have them duplicate, just check. I've checked. Actually, they aren't duplicated. My jade requires a "sgml-common" package which provides these files. I made a workaround to the "case" problem using symlinks. > So I suggest : > > /usr/lib/sgml > docbook-dtd-2.4 > docbook-dtd-2.4.1 > docbook-dtd-3.1 > docbook-dtd-3.0 > docbook-dtd-4.0beta > docbook-dtd -> docbook-dtd-3.1 > docbook-sylesheets-1.49 > docbook-sylesheets-1.50 > docbook-sylesheets-1.51 > docbook-sylesheets-1.52 > docbook-stylesheets -> docbook-stylesheets-1.52 > jade > iso-entities-8879.1986 > gnome > ldp > kde I don't see why symlinking docbook-dtd to a numbered directory. As I said, let the catalogs do the magic. > > The problem with "iso-entities" is that some stylesheets refer to them > > on it's catalog. Making a patch in a packaged distribution (RPM, deb, > > etc.) is easy, but I don't know if it's good in a plain .tar.gz > > distribution (of course, a note saying that files were modified and > > the like would be enough). > > I have been adding a catalog for them in iso-entities-8879.1986, the one > that was in sgml-tools-1.09 ;-) I searched a lot, even on ISO web > servere, but I was unable to find something that looked "official". So I > just did like the others and took what was available... I used symlinks. ;-) Not the best option, thought. I'll have to make a package with them and then adapt all the other. > > BTW, there's another problem regarding iso-entities: sgmltools use > > them with upper case (ISOamsa) and Norm's stylesheets use it with > > lower case and an extension (isoamsa.gml). It's another > > standardization issue. > > I was about to say it. I took : > > ISOamsa ISOamsc ISOamso ISObox ISOcyr2 ISOgrk1 ISOgrk3 ISOlat1 > ISOnum ISOtech > ISOamsb ISOamsn ISOamsr ISOcyr1 ISOdia ISOgrk2 ISOgrk4 ISOlat2 > ISOpub iso-entities.cat I changed as little as possible the DTDs. The symlinks in a specific package might solve the problem... > I had to remove the DTD catalog entries to have them shared between > sgml-tools and the modular stylesheets. Maybe it's not the right > solution, but it works (and anyway, this catalog had to be patched, > because it uses the DTDDECL keyword which is not supported by Jade). > Tell me if you have found a better solution. A new package. Which DTD are you talking about? I remember patching one, but now I don't remember which one... :-) > All of this discussion, according to me, shows that it was necessary to > embetter the docbook-tools distribution, and to normalize the choices. I think the same. Isn't it subject for a new list? I can create one to discuss it. It might be called "sgml-packages" and be hosted here at Conectiva. Or, if nobody on this list gets bored, we might continue talking here... Regards, -- Godoy. Setor de Publicações Publishment Division Conectiva S.A.