From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Ring To: "'docbook-tools-discuss@sourceware.cygnus.com'" Subject: RE: Evolution of the DocBook tools Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:36:00 -0000 Message-id: X-SW-Source: 2000/msg00100.html 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 > 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...