Hi, I've just joined this list and had a look through the mail archives before posting this.

Does anyone know the *current* status of Xalan with respect to DocBook? We are trying to introduce DocBook into our organisation and jumped at the chance to try Xalan 1.3 (and associated software) to (i) validate our DocBook XML files and (ii) translate them to HTML/PDF.

I downloaded and installed the Xalan 1.3 (& related Xerces) binaries for Windows. Nearly all of our WinPCs are running Win95 OSR2 (we didn't buy into the MS upgrade path) - which I later discovered you do not support when I went looking through the mail archives for references to errors when writing an output file.

Nevertheless, for the time being we continued our experiments with Xalan using a number of simple DocBook XML (v4.1.2) transformations with very basic XSL files, writing the output to console rather than to file. Things seemed okay.

So the big test. We downloaded Norman Walsh's DocBook XSL v1.49 and tried Xalan on some of our DocBook XML files (previously validated by other XML validators). It didn't work, we got screenfuls of warnings of the following format:-

XSLT warning: No localization exists for "en" or "". Using default "en"., style tree node: xsl:message, source tree node: <docbook tag here> (, line -1, column -1)

We used the following at the command prompt (actually in a batch file) whose format worked okay when we didn't reference the DocBook XSL:-

set PATH=PATH;d:\xml\xml-xalan\c\Build\Win32\VC6\Release;d:\xml\xml-xerces\c\bin
cd D:\xml
xalan -o ourdoc.html ourdoc.xml d:\xml\docbook\docbook-xsl-1.49\xhtml\docbook.xsl


Am I missing something, is more setting up of the DocBook XSL files required? Or is it a Win95 problem (in which case we've had it until we can purge the organisation of all WinPCs - which isn't gonna happen anytime soon!)? Until I can prove the tool works under Windows there is no point in testing the tools under Linux (which is on a minority of our machines).

Thanks (in anticipation of your help - cross fingers)
Paul Johnson





Reply via email to