On 03/18/2010 12:49 AM, Mike Maxwell wrote:
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.
Sure, DocBook 6 could do that. But such an endeavor is entirely out of
scope for the task I'm proposing here, or anything else related to this
coming GSoC. You may want to lobby Norm for that. :-)
Regards,
Stefan
--
...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
