db* does it serve the purpose

db* does it serve the purpose

[madhu]

hi
for the last couple of day's there is healthy discussion going on this list
well here's is my $2 bit 
a) as a user should i be worrying about tweaking the scripts whether be
it db2html or dbk or David's dbnochunk or for that matter forthcoming eric's Db
 and not to forget howto to install Norman's stylesheets and also the
forthcoming Docbook DTD's . whew that is one hell of a list 
b) The irony of it all is this is regarding  tools which is supposed to make 
our documents better and easier to maintain  
c) as i see it all these tools must have its origin in the fact the authors
would have resorted to it only to ease their pain but not neccessarily useful
to others 
 also the surprising thing why none of the distro's have looked at it from
user space .What i want is something is like this
i enter at  prompt
$ Db everybody
and it asks me 
$TARGET
and i enter 
$  *.sgm/sgml or *.xml
and it asks
$ FORMAT
I enter 
$HTML OR PDF or whatever supported output format
it asks
$STYLESHEETS
I enter 
$path to normans stylesheets (this eliminates the hassle of installing
questions ;-) and also probably this CATALOG business)
it asks 
$CONVERTER (this should end jade vs openjade )
i enter 
$ jade or openjade
it says 
$ CHUNK/NOCHUNK
i say 
$ what is appropriate to me
it says 
$ Please wait .............
bingo 
$error  ;-) or i get my out put 
this should relieve a lot of people of headaches 

is it wishful thinking or people have valid reason not getting  this done .i
mean this will as a user who is interested in furthering use of SGML/XML in
varous application  and spend more quality time with DTD's and styesheets  and
improving them ,shuoldn,t i stop worrying about what scripts .isnt this the same
concern of david when he was talking about one more DB unmaintained or i
misunderstood him . can somebody enlighten me on this 

thank you in advance 
regards
 -- 
maddy

**********************************************************************************************

           "There the eye goes not;Speech goes not,nor the mind.
            We know not,we understand not;How one would teach it"

**********************************************************************************************

Re: db* does it serve the purpose

[Mark Galassi]

Dear Madhu,

I'm sorry to sound negative as I catch up and read your note.

But I cannot imagine anyone wanting to use a program like the one you
outline, which asks you a million questions every time you use it!

Rather, the program you suggest belongs as a simple GUI on top of the
real one (which you invoke on the command line and it shuts up).  This
GUI would have you check off a bunch of stuff and save you a
customized script for what you need.

Re: db* does it serve the purpose

[madhu]

On Thu, 09 Mar 2000, you wrote:
> Dear Madhu,
> 
> I'm sorry to sound negative as I catch up and read your note.

no you are not !
> 
> But I cannot imagine anyone wanting to use a program like the one you
> outline, which asks you a million questions every time you use it!
> 
my point was ease of use ,please do not take it literally.

> Rather, the program you suggest belongs as a simple GUI on top of the
> real one (which you invoke on the command line and it shuts up).  This
> GUI would have you check off a bunch of stuff and save you a
> customized script for what you need.
yes i am aware of it but this thread has gone far ahead which you will
realise as you catch up with a lot of other things  
but it is reassuring to have you back though ;-) which should hopefully take
things further 

thank you
regards
-- maddy
**********************************************************************************************

           "There the eye goes not;Speech goes not,nor the mind.
            We know not,we understand not;How one would teach it"

**********************************************************************************************

Re: db* does it serve the purpose

[Jorge Godoy]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3213 bytes --]

On Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 11:55:59AM +0530, madhu wrote:
> hi
> for the last couple of day's there is healthy discussion going on this list
> well here's is my $2 bit 
> a) as a user should i be worrying about tweaking the scripts whether be
> it db2html or dbk or David's dbnochunk or for that matter forthcoming eric's Db
>  and not to forget howto to install Norman's stylesheets and also the
> forthcoming Docbook DTD's . whew that is one hell of a list 

That's what we are concerned too.

> b) The irony of it all is this is regarding  tools which is supposed to make 
> our documents better and easier to maintain  

Documents maintenance is a separate philosophy. I agree that having an
easy way to use them is one of the things that we must look at. 

> c) as i see it all these tools must have its origin in the fact the authors
> would have resorted to it only to ease their pain but not neccessarily useful
> to others 
>  also the surprising thing why none of the distro's have looked at it from
> user space .What i want is something is like this

No "distro" has looked at it from user space because it's something
new. I thinks it's borning now, since the use of SGMLtools "died" when
the project was abandoned. Now it has a new maintainer. 

> i enter at  prompt
> $ Db everybody
> and it asks me 
> $TARGET
> and i enter 
> $  *.sgm/sgml or *.xml
> and it asks
> $ FORMAT
> I enter 
> $HTML OR PDF or whatever supported output format
> it asks
> $STYLESHEETS
> I enter 
> $path to normans stylesheets (this eliminates the hassle of installing
> questions ;-) and also probably this CATALOG business)

CATALOGs exists so that you don't need this step. ;-) The tools are
clever enough to use the right stylesheet. 

> it asks 
> $CONVERTER (this should end jade vs openjade )
> i enter 
> $ jade or openjade
> it says 
> $ CHUNK/NOCHUNK
> i say 
> $ what is appropriate to me
> it says 
> $ Please wait .............
> bingo 
> $error  ;-) or i get my out put 
> this should relieve a lot of people of headaches 

But it asks too many questions. We'd also to have GNU syntax:

$ DB --format=html --converter=openjade --nochunk everybody.sgml

It's very interesting for automating conversions. You "*.sgml" would
become:

for i in *.sgml do
    DB --format=html --converter=openjade --nochunk $i
done


> is it wishful thinking or people have valid reason not getting  this done .i
> mean this will as a user who is interested in furthering use of SGML/XML in
> varous application  and spend more quality time with DTD's and styesheets  and
> improving them ,shuoldn,t i stop worrying about what scripts .isnt this the same
> concern of david when he was talking about one more DB unmaintained or i
> misunderstood him . can somebody enlighten me on this 

You got the point. People are, now, concerned with the DTD: it's
resources and it's stylesheets presentation. When it's "beautiful" and
with enough features them they'll look at the way people are
working. We are doing what we can with what we know: I'm not a DTD
hacker, so I'm hacking a way to easy the use of the DTD. 


--
Godoy.	<godoy@conectiva.com.br> 

Setor de Publicações
Publishing Department                   Conectiva S.A.

Re: (docbook-tools) Re: db* does it serve the purpose

[Eric Bischoff]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1800 bytes --]

Jorge Godoy wrote:
> But it asks too many questions. We'd also to have GNU syntax:
> 
> $ DB --format=html --converter=openjade --nochunk everybody.sgml

This is the philosophy I'm trying to implement. db2html
already has 5 different conversion flags. Most of them use
defaults that you don't need to redefine for a normal basic
use, so usually "db2html mydoc.sgml" is enough.

Having "db --format=html" or "db2html" is almost the same
(less letters in the second one). If there is a big
pressure, I will merge db2html, db2pdf, db2rtf and db2ps
together, but this will result in an incompatibility with
previous docbook-tools :-(.

"--converter" flag seems more interesting to implement. I
must admit that I don't know openjade. It's a kind of
rewriting of Jade, no ? Can someone explain me in private
how you call it usually ? (executable name, are options
names and semantics identical to jade ?) Users normally only
use only one out of them, no ?

"--nochunk" looks suspicious to me. Isn't it something you
are supposed to cusstomize through an alternate stylesheet ?
Then you would better use "db2html --dsl nochunk.dsl", no ?

I have been sending the new db2* scripts to the connectiva
list. If people feel like hacking them, why not ? Or they
can give suggestions that I will implement.
-- 
 Éric Bischoff   -   mailto:ebisch@cybercable.tm.fr
 __________________________________________________
                                           \^o~_.
     .~.                           ______  /( __ )
     /V\         Toys story         \__  \/  (  V
   //   \\                            \__| (__=v
  /(     )\                        |\___/     )
    ^^-^^                           \_____(  )
     Tux                        Konqui     \__=v
 __________________________________________________

Re: (docbook-tools) Re: db* does it serve the purpose

[Jochem Huhmann]

* Eric Bischoff <ebisch@cybercable.tm.fr> wrote:
> Having "db --format=html" or "db2html" is almost the same
> (less letters in the second one). If there is a big
> pressure, I will merge db2html, db2pdf, db2rtf and db2ps
> together, but this will result in an incompatibility with
> previous docbook-tools :-(.

You could symlink "db" to "db2html" and such, than look at $0 to see how
the script was called and act accordingly. SuSE does it this way too. A
single script seems to make sense to me, since it's just simpler to hack
on.

> "--converter" flag seems more interesting to implement. I
> must admit that I don't know openjade. It's a kind of
> rewriting of Jade, no ? Can someone explain me in private
> how you call it usually ? (executable name, are options
> names and semantics identical to jade ?) Users normally only
> use only one out of them, no ?
> 
> "--nochunk" looks suspicious to me. Isn't it something you
> are supposed to cusstomize through an alternate stylesheet ?
> Then you would better use "db2html --dsl nochunk.dsl", no ?

Well, if this wrappers are meant for DocBook with jade only, one could
stay with "--nochunk", I think. "--dsl nochunk.dsl" is more generic but
also more verbose. That's not far away from calling jade directly
anymore. Maybe just supply "--nochunk" as a shortcut?

> I have been sending the new db2* scripts to the connectiva
> list. If people feel like hacking them, why not ? Or they
> can give suggestions that I will implement.

I've some trouble with my email adresses right now, so I haven't
subscribed to the new list yet (and I haven't got around to post the
list announcement, too - tommorow). 

If you could put the new scripts on ftp somewhere? I could offer some
space if necessary, just upload them to ftp.revier.com/incoming and I
set up a cron-job for moving them to a directory accessible for anon-ftp
(say /pub/sgml/scripts/).




        Jochem

-- 
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!

Re: (docbook-tools) Re: db* does it serve the purpose

[Eric Bischoff]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1615 bytes --]

Jochem Huhmann wrote:
> 
> You could symlink "db" to "db2html" and such, than look at $0 to see how
> the script was called and act accordingly. SuSE does it this way too. A
> single script seems to make sense to me, since it's just simpler to hack
> on.

being discussed on the list.

> Well, if this wrappers are meant for DocBook with jade only, one could
> stay with "--nochunk", I think. "--dsl nochunk.dsl" is more generic but
> also more verbose. That's not far away from calling jade directly
> anymore. Maybe just supply "--nochunk" as a shortcut?

same thing. We added --nochunk, but it doesn't call another
stylesheet.

> I've some trouble with my email adresses right now, so I haven't
> subscribed to the new list yet (and I haven't got around to post the
> list announcement, too - tommorow).
> 
> If you could put the new scripts on ftp somewhere? I could offer some

No, thank you, not as long as they are not accepted by Mark.
And if they are accepted, they would be put at ordinary
docbook tools ftp site.

Just subscribe to the discussion list, I resend them each
time they get improved.

-- 
 Éric Bischoff   -   mailto:ebisch@cybercable.tm.fr
 __________________________________________________
                                           \^o~_.
     .~.                           ______  /( __ )
     /V\         Toys story         \__  \/  (  V
   //   \\                            \__| (__=v
  /(     )\                        |\___/     )
    ^^-^^                           \_____(  )
     Tux                        Konqui     \__=v
 __________________________________________________

Re: (docbook-tools) Re: db* does it serve the purpose

[Jochem Huhmann]

* Eric Bischoff <ebisch@cybercable.tm.fr> wrote:
> > If you could put the new scripts on ftp somewhere? I could offer some
> 
> No, thank you, not as long as they are not accepted by Mark.
> And if they are accepted, they would be put at ordinary
> docbook tools ftp site.

Sounds reasonable...

> Just subscribe to the discussion list, I resend them each
> time they get improved.

Done. Sorry for typing too fast here ;-)


        Jochem

-- 
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!

Re: (docbook-tools) Re: db* does it serve the purpose

[madhu]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2521 bytes --]

hi

On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, you wrote:
> Jorge Godoy wrote:
> > But it asks too many questions. We'd also to have GNU syntax:
> > 
> > $ DB --format=html --converter=openjade --nochunk everybody.sgml
> 
> This is the philosophy I'm trying to implement. db2html
> already has 5 different conversion flags. Most of them use
> defaults that you don't need to redefine for a normal basic
> use, so usually "db2html mydoc.sgml" is enough.
so far Db2html2 as i call them looks fine see my report for additional
information
 > 
> Having "db --format=html" or "db2html" is almost the same
> (less letters in the second one). If there is a big
> pressure, I will merge db2html, db2pdf, db2rtf and db2ps
> together, but this will result in an incompatibility with
> previous docbook-tools :-(.

aw god no that is ten dogs in a circle ,one moves all of them move 
i atleast think it is not a good idea .harder to debug and you will agian have
atleast two more commands extra
 
> "--converter" flag seems more interesting to implement. I
> must admit that I don't know openjade. It's a kind of
> rewriting of Jade, no ? Can someone explain me in private
> how you call it usually ? (executable name, are options
> names and semantics identical to jade ?) Users normally only
> use only one out of them, no ?
as a choice it ls nice to have it though i personally have'nt used it  much
 
> "--nochunk" looks suspicious to me. Isn't it something you
> are supposed to cusstomize through an alternate stylesheet ?
> Then you would better use "db2html --dsl nochunk.dsl", no ?
it is worth having a look at Davids script which used to do a good job ,i think
i have it somewhere but i am not sure .david should be able to help i think it
is called "dbnochunks" or something 
   
> I have been sending the new db2* scripts to the connectiva
> list. If people feel like hacking them, why not ? Or they
> can give suggestions that I will implement.
done 
but why nothing for XML sgml2xml is there but then it writes to stdout but no
output file as far as i know or maybe i dont know how to do it 
can somebody educate me on this 
 > -- 
>  Éric Bischoff   -   mailto:ebisch@cybercable.tm.fr
thank you 
regards
-- 
maddy
**********************************************************************************************

           "There the eye goes not;Speech goes not,nor the mind.
            We know not,we understand not;How one would teach it"

**********************************************************************************************

Re: --parser and --nochunks are available

[madhu]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1477 bytes --]

hi
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, you wrote:

> Since the scripts are becoming more complicated, it is worth
> starting to write a man page for them. Does someone know how
> to write that ? I can give an unformatted text to be
> reworked.
i cant help you with Manpage though i had a different approach in mind.why not
a manual in docbook format for all these scripts and we can continue Mark's
tradition by having a Turial on Docbook usage .he has done a very fine &
wonderful job ,atleast my starting point was his tutorial. but i think that  it
is a half finished and half hearted attempt but again understandable since we
all know how busy he is .by the by is he back  form his numerous conferrences or
some such thing.in fact it can have much more details on dsssl with hopefully
norman's input. i would like to be part of this intiative if everybody likes
it.here's hoping for the best .
> 
> But it would be nice if db2html and friends could operate on
> XML docbook. In docbook-utils version 0.3 ? ;-)
should it take as it is in the mail ;-) that should be nice  
> -- 
>  Éric Bischoff   -   mailto:ebisch@cybercable.tm.fr

thank you
regards

-- 
maddy
**********************************************************************************************

           "There the eye goes not;Speech goes not,nor the mind.
            We know not,we understand not;How one would teach it"

**********************************************************************************************

man page for docbook-utils scripts

[Eric Bischoff]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1663 bytes --]

madhu wrote:
> i cant help you with Manpage though i had a different approach in mind.why not
> a manual in docbook format for all these scripts and we can continue Mark's
> tradition by having a Turial on Docbook usage .he has done a very fine &

Well, we can have both, but a manual page seems more urgent
to me.

I've already been writing such a guide for the KDE project.
It's called
"Crash course to DocBook". And such starter guides are
really many across
the internet. So I'm not very enthusiastic at the idea of
making a new one.

> wonderful job ,atleast my starting point was his tutorial. but i think that  it
> is a half finished and half hearted attempt but again understandable since we
> all know how busy he is .by the by is he back  form his numerous conferrences or
> some such thing.in fact it can have much more details on dsssl with hopefully
> norman's input. i would like to be part of this intiative if everybody likes
> it.here's hoping for the best .

Yes, we could also finish Mark's work. But still, I would
insist on having a man page for db2*. I can write the text
but I don't want to spend some time in learning the markup.

-- 
 Éric Bischoff   -   mailto:ebisch@cybercable.tm.fr
 __________________________________________________
                                           \^o~_.
     .~.                           ______  /( __ )
     /V\         Toys story         \__  \/  (  V
   //   \\                            \__| (__=v
  /(     )\                        |\___/     )
    ^^-^^                           \_____(  )
     Tux                        Konqui     \__=v
 __________________________________________________

Re: --parser and --nochunks are available

[Jorge Godoy]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1540 bytes --]

On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 08:39:41PM +0530, madhu wrote:
> hi
> On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, you wrote:
> 
> > Since the scripts are becoming more complicated, it is worth
> > starting to write a man page for them. Does someone know how
> > to write that ? I can give an unformatted text to be
> > reworked.
> i cant help you with Manpage though i had a different approach in mind.why not
> a manual in docbook format for all these scripts and we can continue Mark's
> tradition by having a Turial on Docbook usage .he has done a very fine &
> wonderful job ,atleast my starting point was his tutorial. but i think that  it
> is a half finished and half hearted attempt but again understandable since we
> all know how busy he is .by the by is he back  form his numerous conferrences or
> some such thing.in fact it can have much more details on dsssl with hopefully
> norman's input. i would like to be part of this intiative if everybody likes
> it.here's hoping for the best .

http://www.metalab.unc.edu/godoy -- there's a starting --- needing
_many_ english corrections --- DocBook HOWTO. 

We can write the man page in docbook... It has support on that. ;-) 

> > But it would be nice if db2html and friends could operate on
> > XML docbook. In docbook-utils version 0.3 ? ;-)
> should it take as it is in the mail ;-) that should be nice  

It wouldn't be nice. It will be needed. DocBook V5.0 is going to be
XML only... 


--
Godoy.	<godoy@conectiva.com.br> 

Setor de Publicações
Publishing Department                   Conectiva S.A.

Re: --parser and --nochunks are available

[Jochem Huhmann]

* Jorge Godoy <godoy@conectiva.com.br> wrote:
> We can write the man page in docbook... It has support on that. ;-) 

Has anyone tried docbbook2man (which produces man-pages from REFENTRY
elements)? http://shell.ipoline.com/~elmert/comp/docbook2X/


        Jochem

-- 
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!

Re: --parser and --nochunks are available

[Eric Bischoff]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1111 bytes --]

Jochem Huhmann wrote:
> 
> * Jorge Godoy <godoy@conectiva.com.br> wrote:
> > We can write the man page in docbook... It has support on that. ;-)
> 
> Has anyone tried docbbook2man (which produces man-pages from REFENTRY
> elements)? http://shell.ipoline.com/~elmert/comp/docbook2X/

No, but db2man can become part of the docbook-utils ;-)

I've been writing the man page for the docbook-utils and try
to use docbook2man with it.

By the way, another feature I could add to the db2* scripts
would be an option to call collateindex.pl. Has someone
already played with a docbook index and this tool ?

Eric
-- 
 Éric Bischoff   -   mailto:ebisch@cybercable.tm.fr
 __________________________________________________
                                           \^o~_.
     .~.                           ______  /( __ )
     /V\         Toys story         \__  \/  (  V
   //   \\                            \__| (__=v
  /(     )\                        |\___/     )
    ^^-^^                           \_____(  )
     Tux                        Konqui     \__=v
 __________________________________________________

Re: --parser and --nochunks are available

[Edward C. Bailey]

>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Bischoff <ebisch@cybercable.tm.fr> writes:
...
Eric> By the way, another feature I could add to the db2* scripts would be
Eric> an option to call collateindex.pl. Has someone already played with a
Eric> docbook index and this tool ?

Yeah, we use it for producing indexes for HTML output.  What do you want to
know?

                            Ed
-- 
Ed Bailey        Red Hat, Inc.          http://www.redhat.com/

Re: --parser and --nochunks are available

[Jorge Godoy]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 633 bytes --]

On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 09:51:59AM -0500, Eric Bischoff wrote:
> 
> By the way, another feature I could add to the db2* scripts
> would be an option to call collateindex.pl. Has someone
> already played with a docbook index and this tool ?

I use collateindex.pl here for all my documents. It works. :-) The
only drawback of this script is that it needs to generate the HTML
output. I've made some scripts that remove these files after
generating them so that the HTML I have as output were the ones I
asked for. 
--
Godoy.	<godoy@conectiva.com.br> 

Setor de Publicações
Publishing Department                   Conectiva S.A.

Re: --parser and --nochunks are available

[Jochem Huhmann]

* Eric Bischoff <ebisch@cybercable.tm.fr> wrote:
> Jochem Huhmann wrote:
> > 
> > * Jorge Godoy <godoy@conectiva.com.br> wrote:
> > > We can write the man page in docbook... It has support on that. ;-)
> > 
> > Has anyone tried docbbook2man (which produces man-pages from REFENTRY
> > elements)? http://shell.ipoline.com/~elmert/comp/docbook2X/
> 
> No, but db2man can become part of the docbook-utils ;-)
> 
> I've been writing the man page for the docbook-utils and try
> to use docbook2man with it.
> 
> By the way, another feature I could add to the db2* scripts
> would be an option to call collateindex.pl. Has someone
> already played with a docbook index and this tool ?

Not yet. But shouldn't be there some framework for such things in a more
generalized way?

SGMLTools calls these "backends". So "-b html" converts to HTML, "-b ps"
to Postscript, "-b txt" to plain text (via --nochunks and then stripping
the HTML away with "lynx --dump")...

It would be the most flexible approach to make such backends
pluggable. If called with a not builtin backend (say "-b foo") the
script could look if there is a file "/etc/sgml/backends/foo.sh" and
just source it. From this sh-snippet one would have comfortable access
to all parsed commandline arguments and such, so that a new wrapper
around db2man or collateindex.pl (or docbook2latex, or whatever) could
be written in a few lines and simply thrown in.


[I've cc'ed this to the new list]

        Jochem

-- 
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!

Re: --parser and --nochunks are available

[Mark Galassi]

    Eric> No, but db2man can become part of the docbook-utils ;-)

Definitely: this, together with all other such useful scripts (like
the texinfo ones) should be merged in.

For robustness of the distribution, though, we need to make sure that
there is a tight loop with the maintainers of these packages.

If they have a regular release process, we can latch in to it and use
it for packaging.  If they don't, we can invite them to maintain the
programs in our repository.

Re: (docbook-tools) Re: db* does it serve the purpose

[Jorge Godoy]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2106 bytes --]

On Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 05:58:02PM -0500, Eric Bischoff wrote:
> Jorge Godoy wrote:
> > But it asks too many questions. We'd also to have GNU syntax:
> > 
> > $ DB --format=html --converter=openjade --nochunk everybody.sgml
> 
> This is the philosophy I'm trying to implement. db2html
> already has 5 different conversion flags. Most of them use
> defaults that you don't need to redefine for a normal basic
> use, so usually "db2html mydoc.sgml" is enough.

It's the best way. Having defaults that are usually correct is the
best thing that can happen with a tool. :-)

> Having "db --format=html" or "db2html" is almost the same
> (less letters in the second one). If there is a big
> pressure, I will merge db2html, db2pdf, db2rtf and db2ps
> together, but this will result in an incompatibility with
> previous docbook-tools :-(.

Again you can use the other calls as wrappers... Nothing is broken,
then. 

> "--converter" flag seems more interesting to implement. I
> must admit that I don't know openjade. It's a kind of
> rewriting of Jade, no ? Can someone explain me in private
> how you call it usually ? (executable name, are options
> names and semantics identical to jade ?) Users normally only
> use only one out of them, no ?

Usually only one is installed. Openjade's options are exactly the same
as Jade's but it supports more output formats (such as MIF, whatever
it is). 

> "--nochunk" looks suspicious to me. Isn't it something you
> are supposed to cusstomize through an alternate stylesheet ?
> Then you would better use "db2html --dsl nochunk.dsl", no ?

I don't see why having another stylesheet just to avoid chunks. In
jade you can say: jade ... -V nochunks ... and it will be interpreted
the same way as having (define nochunks #t) on your stylesheet. It can
only be true or false... 

> I have been sending the new db2* scripts to the connectiva
> list. If people feel like hacking them, why not ? Or they
> can give suggestions that I will implement.

:-)

--
Godoy.	<godoy@conectiva.com.br> 

Setor de Publicações
Publishing Department                   Conectiva S.A.

Re: (docbook-tools) Re: db* does it serve the purpose

[Jochem Huhmann]

* Jorge Godoy <godoy@conectiva.com.br> wrote:
> Usually only one is installed. Openjade's options are exactly the same
> as Jade's but it supports more output formats (such as MIF, whatever
> it is). 

This is from FrameMaker (AFAIK FrameMaker Interchange Format).


        Jochem

-- 
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!

Re: db* does it serve the purpose

[Eric Bischoff]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1006 bytes --]

madhu wrote:

>  also the surprising thing why none of the distro's have looked at it from
> user space .What i want is something is like this
> i enter at  prompt
> $ Db everybody
> and it asks me
> $TARGET
> and i enter
< (snipped)
> $ Please wait .............
> bingo
> $error  ;-) or i get my out put
> this should relieve a lot of people of headaches

Pffff how long and painful in everyday's work.

To answer the rest of your message : we're doing our best to
make the life easier to users.

-- 
 Éric Bischoff   -   mailto:ebisch@cybercable.tm.fr
 __________________________________________________
                                           \^o~_.
     .~.                           ______  /( __ )
     /V\         Toys story         \__  \/  (  V
   //   \\                            \__| (__=v
  /(     )\                        |\___/     )
    ^^-^^                           \_____(  )
     Tux                        Konqui     \__=v
 __________________________________________________