Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > p.s. It'd also be nice if that were XML, not SGML, so that more
> > tools can be used with it. It'd still be usable with
> > SGML tools, but there are some pretty neat XML based
> > publications toos (and systems) becoming available now.
>
> DocBook doesn't have an XML DTD as yet.
Depends how official you mean. There are two XML Docbook DTDs of
which I'm aware: Norm Walsh's Docbook 3.1.7 version (www.nwalsh.com,
also has some matching XSLT stylesheets) and the official Beta2 version
of Docbook 4.0 ... likely you're referring to the fact that it's not
till Docbook 5.0 that Docbook itself will stop relying SGML-isms.
> So its nothing like as trivial as
> you seem to think.
Actually I didn't mean making the DOCTYPTE declaration refer
to the XML DTDs; that'd be more appropriate for Docbook 5
than right now. (Or maybe the "official" Docbook 4 stuff,
but I've not looked too closely at that issue.)
I just meant to write stuff like
<para>...</para>
<section>
&chapter;
</section>
instead of what I saw in the last version I looked at (yes this
is exaggerated!):
<pAra>...</>
<SeCtIoN>
&chapter
</section>
I do count that as trivial, since it's just cleaner syntax
(and it's still SGML too).
"Open content" as XML will be far more generally usable than
as SGML -- and the SGML tools can also be used. I don't use
them, but I understand there's a mostly-correct "XML mode"
in nsgmls, that various folks have told their EMACSen to use.
- Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
