For what they're worth, my 2 cents on the questions about packaging of the Simplified DocBook DTD and Slides doctype.
Susan Kleinmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > We have a package named docbook-xml-simple, which is quite out of date. > I propose installing a new package called docbook-simple, to conflict > with and replace docbook-xml-simple. The reasons are: > > a) There isn't any docbook-sgml-simple, so there's no need to distinguish > docbook-xml-simple from docbook-simple. docbook-simple makes sense to me. > b) The docbook-simple DTD has undergone a significant version numbering > change. Whereas the last version of docbook-xml-simple was 4.1.2.4, > the version of the current release of docbook-simple is 1.0CR2. I would > guess that adopting this new version numbering scheme would require at least > an epoch change. That makes sense to me also. > c) The package docbook-xml-simple came with several versions of the simplified > DocBook DTD, corresponding to various versions of the DTD for DocBook > itself. This suggests that docbook-simple is a case where one might > want to keep around old versions of the package. The package > docbook-simple could just co-exist with docbook-xml-simple. It seems like it'd be better to have docbook-simple completely supersede docbook-xml-simple, as you suggested initially. The only good reason I can think of to keep docbook-xml-simple around would be if docs authored using Simplified 4.1.2.4 could not be validated using Simplfied 1.0CR2+ (that is, if 1.0CR2+ were not backward-compatible with 4.1.2.4). But as far as I know, no backwards-incompatible changes were introduced between 4.1.2.4 and 1.0CR2 (and none will be unless/until there is a 2.0 Simplified release). So any "legacy" 4.1.2.4/docbook-xml-simple docs should still validate against 1.0CR2+. But you might want to check with Norm Walsh to confirm that. > This matters because docbook-slides (which is no longer in the archive, > but which I would like to resurrect with its newer version) depends on > a new-ish version of docbook-simple. > > Therefore, if there was some agreement on how the new version of the > simplified DocBook DTD should be packaged, I could proceed to finish > packaging the new version of docbook-slides. The latest Slides release depends on Simplified 1.0CR2, so it seems like your initial suggestions to go with the name docbook-simple and have the package conflict with and replace docbook-xml-simple are the way to go. HTH, --Mike Smith -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
