On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 5:46 AM, Rick Hillegas <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1/9/12 4:36 PM, Myrna van Lunteren wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Andrew McIntyre<[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Jean T. Anderson<[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I did some checking and that file has been in the subversion respository >>>> since April 2005, added in revision 161353 with the log message "Add >>>> single >>>> page HTML output to derby doc build." -- in other words, ever since we >>>> started using DITA to build the docs, so I expect it to be in all >>>> distributions starting with 10.1. I'll check with Andrew next week to >>>> see if >>>> he remembers more of the story around this file. Or maybe one of the >>>> other >>>> committers on this list who have tweaked this file can comment? >>>> >>>> In the meantime, while we untangle the story to all our satisfaction, >>>> anyone >>>> who further distributes the derby product should, of course, follow the >>>> advice of their lawyer. If there's any concern about this file, then one >>>> option would be to omit the single book HTML file from your distribution >>>> -- >>>> perhaps just include the PDF file or link to the single book HTML file >>>> on >>>> the apache site. >>>> >>>> regards, >>>> >>>> -jean >>> >>> Hi Jean, >>> >>> We had been using this file to generate single-page HTML documentation >>> for test and review during the DITA conversion since before the docs >>> were contributed to Apache. I checked it in when I was moving the doc >>> build machinery into Subversion. In retrospect, I probably shouldn't >>> have checked it in, but when someone went to modify it is when we had >>> the original discussion. There should at least be an entry for it in >>> the doc-src NOTICES. I can remove the file if it's a problem though, >>> as the file could be downloaded directly to the release builder's >>> machine by Ant. Also, there are other, free options for converting >>> PDFs to HTML files. >>> >>> - andrew >> >> I think we should probably get rid of this file, and we should really >> avoid using it altogether. Is there anyone who has the skill to >> replace this file? >> >> Myrna >> > I ran a quick experiment: I removed fo2html.xsl and verified that I could > build the frames html docs. Here are some solutions listed in declining > order of effort: > > 1) Remove fo2html.xsl. > > + Easy. > - We will lose the no-frames version of the html docs. I do use the > no-frames version when citing doc passages in posts to derby-user. That is > my only use for the no-frames version. Passage citations would be a little > more cumbersome, but I could live with that. > > 2) Track down Nikolai Grigoriev and get him to open source this file under > Apache 2.0. > > + Preserves the no-frames version of the docs. > + Relatively low effort on our part. > - Unbounded problem. We're not certain that we can track him down or that he > would agree to use the Apache 2.0 license. > > 3) Replace fo2html.xsl with an xsl transformation which we write ourselves. > > + Preserves the no-frames version of the docs. > - Probably outside the current skill sets of our current contributors. > > 4) Convert the docs to another source format. > > + Would be an opportunity to address our dissatisfactions with DITA, > including its accessibility problems and our inability to generate a doc > index. > - Big effort. > > Thanks, > -Rick
Quick question/comment re 2): Nikolai Grigoriev is listed as author but isn't the copyright by renderX? Daniel Dobbins said he tried to contact the author without result, perhaps he didn't try the company...But - I am not a lawyer. I prefer option 4 but have no time/skill, so for short term 1. Myrna
