This is the mail archive of the docbook@lists.oasis-open.org mailing list for the DocBook project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [docbook] questions about the future of docbook (ng)...


I find myself agreeing with the points made below.

See my posting from last year on docbook.org/wiki:

***
An alternative, modular design could make docbook available in smaller chunks targeted towards specific usages/users (e.g. those writing articles vs specifications vs faq). Such a design would have several important benefits, such as obviating the need for simplified docbook (freeing up resources currently tied up in maintaining this product and keeping it in synch with full docbook), making docbook simpler to understand and more accessible, and providing a natural set of fault lines for organizing tutorials and documentation. ModularDocbook <http://www.docbook.org/wiki/moin.cgi/ModularDocbook>:http://www.docbook.org/wiki/moin.cgi/ModularDocbook
***


In a nutshell, you would have a relatively small "core" set of constructs, and then each dialect/usage
(such as article, book, review, resume, business letter, journal entry, meeting minutes, role description, design pattern,
slideshow presentation, brochure, etc. etc) would be defined by its own stand-alone schema/DTD files which
would *include* the appropriate core pieces.


This would nudge docbook a little bit more towards something like OASIS Universal Business Language, in fact
it could complement it quite nicely. I could see it expanding where you would have a small team (Norm et al)
in charge of the core and different comittees or open source-style groups for each logical area (a la SlideML).


The modular nature of this approach means that, even if I *didn't* like the "docbook resume markup", all I have
to do is make my own resume.dtd but it still includes all the same core docbook DTDs and therefore
is largely compatible with the larger docbook universe.


I believe this design would give you have compatibility when/where you
want it without lockin to a giant monolithic structure.

my 2c,

--Craeg Strong

Stefan Seefeld wrote:

hi there,

I was tempted to write another 'talkback' to Norm's
blog (http://norman.walsh.name/2004/01/01/absinthe)
but I believe this ML is a better medium for a followup...

What I'm trying to understand is how docbook ng will
deal with the proliferation of domain-specific vocabularies.

One obvious option is modularization, though it isn't (to
me at least) clear how exactly that would be designed.

What I thought of as modularization isn't merely a way
to *use* subsets of the docbook vocabulary, but to really
redefine it so there is a 'core' vocabulary and a set of
'profiles'.

IMO the question should be asked 'what is docbook' ?
Is 'classsynopsis' part of it ? Or is it part of a profile ?
Can people add domain-specific vocabularies (profiles)
without the need for a central authority ? Etc.

I'm tempted to use docbook in a couple of domains I'm
writing documentation in (notably software architecture /
development process, modeling, API documentation, etc.),
and I feel some higher level vocabulary missing.

On the other hand I totally agree with Norm's assessment
that docbook isn't a modeling language. But the, wouldn't
there be a way to *add* a modeling language on top of
docbook ? Or somehow map one to the other ?
I'm for example playing with UML modeling tools that let
me generate 'html reports' from my models. These are
generated via xslt scripts, so it is tempting to try to
write new scripts that generate some docbook vocabulary...

What do you think ?

Kind regards,
        Stefan



To unsubscribe from this list, send a post to docbook-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org, or visit http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/.



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]