Hi Mike, Thanks for these excellent questions, my comments inline.
Michael Pogue wrote: > Ah, I finally had a chance to try this out. Pretty slick! Are you referring to DocBookTrans? I'm glad it worked for you. > I'm not sure I did it right, but I got a lot of output that looks > roughly correct. > (I'm still getting the Olink errors, but I'm ignoring those for now, > because we already > know why those are there) Ok > > I have one observation/question here -- the output files seem to be > "docs.sun.com-centric", > in that the output files all have the Sun navbar (with Sun Logo, > Products, > Downloads, Service & Solutions, Support, Training, etc.) at the top. > At the bottom, there's > a link to the Sun Company Info, Privacy statement, Terms of Use, etc. > So, the pages that > are generated are really specific to Sun's Solaris website, rather > than being specific to > OpenSolaris itself. Right, we have an HTML style sheet, but it is not automated in the tool. It is here http://opensolaris.org/os/community/documentation/doc_collab/tools/format.css.txt I just remove the docs.sun.com links and insert this stylesheet at the end of each file manually. I've requested help to get new stylesheet for the DocBookTrans tool, so I'll let you know if we get some help. > > I noticed that the HTML files that come in the docs-20071121.tar.gz > file are also > Sun-branded files, rather than OpenSolaris-branded or generic files, > as well.... Right, I can fix this in the next push because we do have a stylesheet for Indiana. > > My question: > At some point, will somebody be creating an OpenSolaris template, so > that the docs are > OpenSolaris docs (of which Sun will have its own Solaris flavor, > branded separately)? > (OK, I admit this was a suggestion in the form of a question... :-) Right, well, we have opensolaris branded docs for Indiana, but we don't have common templates with the opensolaris branding, we just post to the web site and inherit the stylesheet. > > The broader question: > This brings up the broader question of how the branding > differentiation will be done > in the docs.... Has that been figured out yet? The docs all say > "Solaris" in the > source .xml files. Perhaps there should be a standard ENTITY > definition that could be > used to distinguish these.... e.g. the docs distributed with > OpenSolaris would say > "OpenSolaris", and the docs distributed with Solaris would say "Solaris". Well, this is a much broader question we might not be able to answer here. You say 'distributed with opensolaris', but what does that really mean? I have worked to figure this out and it isn't appropriate to re-brand the redistributable Solaris docs in the way you are suggesting. But, for everything that is new, you're right that we have a known gap of commonly branded templates that is still a marketing issue surrounding the trademark usage. There are rules for usage and right now, we can just title 'XYZ Document for the OpenSolaris Project', but can't really say 'OpenSolaris XYZ Document'. This is so different from the rules for the Solaris trademark that replacing a standard ENTITY definition, even if it becomes appropriate, would produce a lot of manual work to rewrite titles. So, we don't rebrand all the legacy content because the bang for the buck is way too small, we point folks to the trademark and titling guidelines so they know what to do if they redistribute and we focus our energy on correct branding for smaller set of Indiana, Belenix, Schillix, etc. documents. I hope this helps, let me know if you see a better way out of this, meanwhile we'll work on getting the Indiana stylesheet available. Thanks again, Michelle > > Mike > > michelle olson wrote: >> Hi Mike, >> >> I remembered today that we do have a GUI tool for generating HTML >> from the XML. Here you go, this is just install and click one button, >> much easier: >> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/documentation/files/DocBookTrans-1.zip >> >> >> > <snip/>
