Mark Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > Below is an RFC for the implementation of the SGML/XML Proposal for the LSB > > (version 0.3) in Debian. I've send this to several mailing list to give it > > broad attention, but please keep all the further discussion on debian-sgml. > > All affected package maintainers please subscribe to debian-sgml. > > > > The complete proposal can be found at > > > > http://dulug.duke.edu/~mark/debian/sgml/bischoff/ > > BTW, the sgml component of the proposal is also part if the LSB 0.4.1 RFC. > The content is the same as the copy above, but the rationale is not included. > LSB is taking comments until Wednesday January 24th, 2001. It's here: > > http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/spec/lsbsgml.html > > Here are my comments. > > XSL Stylesheet Comment > ------------------ > > -- We need a mechanism for docbook-related XSL stylesheets to refer to the > main > DocBook XSL Stylesheet (dbxsl) distribution. > Example: DocBook Website Stylesheets reference sheets from the dbxsl > distribution. > > At present we (I, anyway) do this by only allowing one version of the dbxsl > to exist on a > system -- same as Adam does with the DSSSL style sheets. The difference > between xsl > and dsssl is that presently there is no catalog mechanism for the xsl > stylesheets, which > will make importing more difficult. Here's a basic description of the > situation: > > Presently the distributions sit in an nwalsh/ subdirectory of the > /usr/lib/sgml/stylesheet/docbook/[xsl or dsssl]/] stylesheet tree with the > same > largely-flat layout as the upstream source, like so: > > nwalsh/ > common/ > ... > print/ > html/ > > Note: No version numbers are in this tree -- > as are suggested by the bischoff sgml/lsb proposal. > > In the xsl case, I've been installing additional stylesheets into the same > nwalsh/ subdir, > the result of which looks like this: > > nwalsh/ > common/ > ... > print/ > html/ > website/[possible versioned subdirs here] > > The point: > > The website stylesheets must import html/docbook.xsl from the main > distribution, > which I do by a relative path: > > <xsl:import href="../html/docbook.xsl"/> > > This won't work with the proposed scheme, which will now have > version-numbered > directories for the docbook xsl stylesheets. > > What to do? > - Don't allow multiple versions of _main_ docbook-xsl-stylesheets. They > really are upgrades, > making it unnecessary to do so. (Norm Walsh, upstream developer also made > this point.) > > - Use the /etc/alternatives system to establish links that can be configured. > The link could be top-level: > /usr/share/sgml/docbook/xsl-stylesheets <-- > > - Ask Norm -- Maybe a catalog mechanism for the xsl stylesheets is in the > works??
For now I suggest we use /etc/alternatives (or direct symlinks) to handle this, also based on Norm's reply. > ----- > > Directory Structure Comment: > --------------------- > On the proposed directory structure -- grouped by classes of dtds rather than > file function: > > -Current dir structure: > > /usr/[share or lib]/sgml/ > dtd/ > stylesheet/ > entities/ > > -Proposed: > > /usr/share/sgml/docbook/ > sgml-dtd-3.1/ > sgml-dtd-4.0/ > xml-dtd-4.0/ (the DocBook DTD) > dsssl-stylesheets-1.54/ > xsl-stylesheets-1.12/ > > Wouldn't a hybrid of the two make much more sense? Something like: > > /usr/share/sgml/docbook/ > dtd/ > stylesheet/ > entities/ > > The proposed structure looks unnecessarily messy, and harder to maintain. > Perhaps the authors of the proposal haven't encountered the xsl stylesheet > problem -- I don't see any rpms for them. > > I'm going to submit this "hybrid" idea to LSB as part of their RFC, unless > someone here feels strongly that the present proposal is a better solution. I agree completely with your proposal! For docbook the setup in the proposal might make sense, but for e.g. something like the HTML stuff in sgml-data it's rather overdone. > Terminology Comment > ---------------- > > I think the proposed use of the term "SGML Application" as > > Any program used to view, edit, convert, process or apply any kind of > treatment to a document written using a SGML or XML DTD. > > is not a good idea. > > The term is already in wide use and has a very specific meaning: > An application of SGML, or SGML application, refers to a DTD. > (For example, see http://xml.coverpages.org/gen-apps.html ) > > Adoption of this term will surely create mass confusion. > I suggest the term "Component" instead, as used informally by > Cees de Groot, the sgml-tools guy. Agreed. Thanks, Ardo -- Ardo van Rangelrooij home email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] home page: http://people.debian.org/~ardo PGP fp: 3B 1F 21 72 00 5C 3A 73 7F 72 DF D9 90 78 47 F9
