Hi Mike, et al,
We have endeavored to simply the content models from full DocBook by
including only those elements that make sense for most publishers. As a
result, the Publishers schema (which is a customization layer) retains
212 core DocBook elements, removes 149 elements and redefines a handful.
We're still trying to crank out an approved spec, but details on the
elements are listed here:
http://wiki.docbook.org/topic/PublishersMinimalElements?highlight=(publishers)
The way we've written the schema (based on DocBook v5.0 using RelaxNG)
is in a modular fashion, so if you need any of the technical elements,
say to create a book on software, it is easy to include the software module.
Any additions we've created are what we have perceived as "gaps" - e.g.
poetry and dialogue.
The minutes from our meetings are posted here:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/docbook-publishers/
Hope this helps. We would appreciate any additional feedback or
participation (you must be an OASIS member to join).
Best regards,
--Scott
Mike Maxwell wrote:
Scott Hudson wrote:
There isn't a "play" element, but we've added dialogue and poetry.
Take a look at those and the samples.
First I'd heard that there was a DocBook subcommittee(s?) for other
kinds of documents. I went to what I guess is the webpage for this
subcommittee:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=docbook-publishers
(there's a page at www.oasis-open.org/committees/, but it seems to be
more general than DocBook). The above page looks to be rather out of
date (next meeting is 2 May last year, and the links to the SC Charter
and the FAQ are broken). Then there's
http://shudson310.blogspot.com/2007/03/docbook-subcommittee-for-publishers.html
which talks about "official DocBook variant_s_" (emphasis mine). Where
are the other variants described, and is there a timeframe for them?
Where can I go to find out more? The mailing list archives require a
SourceForge account to view them, which I suppose I can create, but
which seems superfluous for read-only access.
I'll also mention that one of the things that bothers me about the
current DocBook is that it seems to be so oriented towards computer
documentation. Of course one can pare it down, but I wonder why all
those computer-related tags in there in the first place, instead of in
one or more separate add-in modules? In other words, I would like to
use DB for my purpose (grammar writing) by taking a bare-bones DB and
adding any modules I might need, rather than taking a "fat" DB and
modifying my local schema to omit all the tags I don't need.
Along these lines, the Scope of Work on the SC webpage mentions *adding*
"support for features specific to the publishing industry." My personal
hope is that these additions stay in add-in modules, rather than
increasing the size of the existing DB standard.
Of course maybe I misunderstand, and my doubts are being addressed in
some other way.
--
Mike Maxwell
"We signify something too narrow when we say:
Man is a grammatical animal. For although there
is no animal except man with a knowledge of grammar,
yet not every man has a knowledge of grammar."
--Martianus Capella, "The Seven Liberal Arts"
P.S. Scott: I may be old, but I don't take a metal detector to the
beach. Yet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
