RE: Evolution of the DocBook tools

[Peter Ring <PRI@cddk.dk>]

Keep talking!

I've been waiting for this subject to get some real focus. It seemed
that most SGML tool developers were happy hacking their means of
distribution (including introducing silly variants of SGML Open catalog
files), which is fine as long as you can pretend to own the poor users'
namespace. Well, you don't.

We try putting together a directory structure for the kind of 'things'
that SGML tools share, based on James Clark's design for the entity
manager in sgmls (refer to
http://www.uic.edu/~cmsmcq/tech/sgmls.entities.html ). The idea is to
find a pattern that is easy to understand and implement, so that anyone
(e.g. a program) would come up with the same directory structure, given
the FPI for an entity. The structure must allow for different releases
of 'the same' entities, and we'd like to use the resulting directory
structure as a name space that also manages related processing tools,
scripts and stylesheets. Some of the processing tools use the directory
structure as part of a name space, e.g. Python.

Comments? Thoughts? 

Kind regards,
Peter Ring


-----Original Message-----
From: Jorge Godoy [ mailto:godoy@conectiva.com.br ]
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 3:11 PM
To: Eric Bischoff
Cc: docbook-tools-discuss@sourceware.cygnus.com
Subject: Re: Evolution of the DocBook tools

<snip>

> 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... 

<snip>