Hi,
I know of no tool that can validate the resolved content of a DocBook assembly in one step. As you know, some XML parsers can resolve XIncludes and validate the resolved content. But DocBook assembly is not yet a finalized standard, and I know of no parsers that have added it their kit. Currently your best bet is a two-step process that applies the assembly.xsl stylesheet to the assembly file to generate a DocBook document, and then pass the results to a validator like Jing.

Bob Stayton
Sagehill Enterprises
[email protected]

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Robert Fekete" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:06 AM
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: [docbook-apps] How to validate assemblies and the underlying files?

Hi,

We are using a slightly customized Relax-NG schema based on docbook, and I have the following problem when validating files (we are using Jing). Our documents are highly modular, using lots of xincludes.

- When validating a traditional docbook document (for example, a book, chapter, or article), everything is OK, out custom.rng file has an include statement for the docbookxi.rng file, Jing resolves the xincludes, and validates the complete document.

- However, for documents that use assemblies, the assembly.rng file (from DocBook Assembly V5.1b7) validates only the top-level assembly file. The underlying files (mostly chapters that xinclude further files) are not validated.

My goal would be to have a single custom.rng file that I can reference during validation, and that would validate all types of files, as well as any files they xinclude.

What is the proper way to do that?

Thank you for your help in advance.

Kind Regards,

Robert


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to