Norman Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> / Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
> | accept. The unnecessarily broad divergance of the shipped Docbook
> | declaration puts a burden on document engineers using DocBook.
>
> This whole problem is probably the result of documentation errors on
> my part. The declaration shipped with DocBook is advisory and was
> never intended to be normative: the documentation should state that
> clearly.
>
> There's no reason why you should use it if your software behaves
> better with a different declaration.
Yes, I've disabled it for the Debian distribution. However, it
*appears* normative in that the docbook.cat file ships with it turned
on via the DTDDECL (understood by OpenJade but not Jade).
I guess in short my recommendation would become that that DTDDECL in
the shipped docbook.dcl be turned off, with perhaps an explanatory
comment there what its for.
> Is this workaround being accomplished by editing the file that
> purports to be ISOcyr1.ent from ISO 8879? Yuck! Please give those
> modified entity sets a different public identifier and store them
> somewhere else
I'll take that under advisement. Something is clearly not right. The
problem -- you might recall this -- is regarding SDATA entities not
understood by jade or openjade. It might be best just to try to fix
Jade.
--
.....Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]<URL:http://www.onshored.com/>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
