On 04/06/2010 02:56 AM, Dave Pawson wrote:
On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 22:22:05 -0400
Stefan Seefeld<[email protected]> wrote:
In fact, I hope that a similar strategy may be chosen for other
ports, such as the Website and Slides vocabularies, when they are
ported to DocBook 5.
Perhaps that's a good GSOC idea? Designing
a strategy to 'part' docbook into sub-vocabs
and provide a mechanism whereby any pairing could
integrate without problems.
Do you thinking of this as a separate project ? I was hoping that such
conceptual / design work could be part of the existing "applied"
projects such as the one we are discussing here, or the two others about
Website and Slides. In any case, I'd very much appreciate if, during the
curse of any such project, we could together discuss any upcoming design
questions here on the list (or wherever might be a better place / medium).
In particular, in case more than one of these projects gets accepted, I
certainly hope to see collaboration on these aspects among them, such
that there is a common approach to them all.
I can certainly see this API profile to integrate bits from what is
already in DB (such as "funcsynopsis", "oointerface", etc.), but I
expected this to be impractical for the obvious backward-incompatibility
issues. If you think that it should be done nonetheless, that could
certainly be added, once the main work has been completed.
Thanks,
Stefan
--
...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
