Stefan Seefeld wrote:
On 03/14/2010 03:26 PM, Mike Maxwell wrote:
My sense (which I guess I've voiced a couple times) is that there is
already an awfully lot (too much, IMO) about DB that is specific to
programming languages. Our localization has over 200 lines like
<define name="db.classsynopsis"><notAllowed/></define>
My guess is that if you were to add programming elements in a separate
namespace, you would want to move all the existing
programming-specific elements into that namespace too.
I don't think this is possible without breaking lots of existing
documentation.
If backward-compatibility wasn't an issue, I would very much like the
suggestion.
Given that the root element of a DocBook 5 file looks something like
<chapter xmlns="http://docbook.org/ns/docbook";...
is this really a problem? Couldn't a DB document written for the new
modular DocBook schema have something like
<chapter xmlns="http://docbook.org/ns/ModDocBook";
or
<chapter xmlns="http://docbook.org/ns/docbook6";...
? So any documentation written in the Olde DB could continue to use the
old schema, and not get broken.
At any rate, I would think it would be trivial to port a DB 5 document
to such a modular docbook, by adding a namespace declaration for
programming language-specific elements at the top, and prefixing any
programming language-specific element names with the namespace
abbreviation.
But maybe I'm missing something...
--
Mike Maxwell
What good is a universe without somebody around to look at it?
--Robert Dicke, Princeton physicist
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
