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

[Eric Bischoff <ebisch@cybercable.tm.fr>]

[-- 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
 __________________________________________________