Costin Manolache wrote: > jean-frederic clere wrote: > > >>Costin Manolache wrote: >> >>>Mladen Turk wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>On Behalf Of Costin Manolache >>>>> >>>>>Are we documenting all those settings - and the details on >>>>>why/how :-) ? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>Sure, like everyone else ;). >>> >>> >>>Yes, I know :-) >>> >>>I'll try to get over the horrible and nonstandard DTD that we >>>use >> >>I agree for not standard DTD but horrible... >>Well it needs a lot of improvements but that means the xml files need to >>be reviewed carefully I would suggest to output messages when using >>"weird" elements to have time to rewrite the files. > > > :-) Sorry about 'horrible'. > > What I meant is - the elements like <section> and almost everything > else have an identical meaning as the standard XHTML or docbook element. > It's a mix of elements - to do something that is already done and > standard and accepted. > > What I find horrible is the fragmentation and missuse of XML > ( not only here, but all over ). > What's wrong with a subset of XHTML or Docbook ?
The first idea was to save us from writing XML tags and concentrate in the text. We have ended defining a dtd that fits our needs with typing the minimum... > Do we > plan to beat W3C and Oasis in setting a standard for document > dtd ? No, but extending one dtd would be better than reinventing everything. I will try to make a cleanup as soon as I have time. (docs need a lot of time). > > ( well, that's just me ranting - this has little to do > with our xdocs, as I said I'll try to get over it and > add to them ) > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
