Don, I plan to update the current stylebook stylesheets to whichever layout we can all agree on. I am definitely going to convert the top-leve web-site (in xml-site) to Docbook. That doesn't mean the subprojects will have to change - except for style.
At the same time, automated building of the website is a mess right now. Many sub projects are not using the xml-site repository. So right now, I'm wondering if we need to make xml-site just contain the top-level site, and an ant script that checks out the appropriate subdirectories for each subproject and then builds the whole thing. There are a lot of things being discussed about the site right now. Not all of them have to happen at once, and not all of them have to be adopted by every subproject. I hope to put enough functionality into xml-site that it will be worth it for all subprojects to participate, but we'll just have to wait and see what I come up with. Ted On Thu, 2001-11-01 at 11:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > As a writer on the Xalan sub-project, I am worried about the potential > problems of adapting to a new XML doctype with no transition. > > Before we abandon the original xml.apache.org XML doctypes (book, s1, faqs, > etc.) in place of DocBook or any other document type, I think we should > create the stylesheets to transform our current doctypes into the desired > HTML output. We certainly don't need to continue to use StyleBook (a tool, > not a set of doctypes), since it is poorly documented and maintained. Given > when it was written (over 2 years ago) it is inefficient (DOM-, not > SAX-oriented) in its use of Xalan, and everyone appears to want to get away > from the graphics that it is currently configured (given the stylesheets in > xml-site/style) to generate. It does package up the generation of an HTML > "book," but Xalan can do the same on its own with its > org.apache.xalan.lib.PipeDocument extension element, which allows a base > stylesheet to generate a TOC from a book document, and to oversee the use > of other stylesheets to transform each source document (s1, faqs, etc.) to > HTML. > > If someone finds it convenient to first transform the original doctypes to > DocBook, and then from DocBook to HTML, fine! Those who are ready to move > to DocBook for managing their XML sources can do so, and cut out the first > transformation step in generating HTML. Others can continue to update the > original documents without worrying about mastering DocBook all at once. > > I have a procedure in place for transforming the book/s1/faqs doctypes to > DITA XML and from DITA to HTML and PDF, so I know what I speak of above is > manageable. For those who are interested in DITA, a highly modular and > extensible doctype architecture that supports a really neat inheritance > scheme for specializing <topic>s, see > http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/x-dita1/index.html and > http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-dita2/index.html. > > > -- Don Leslie > > > > > > > Edwin Goei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 10/29/2001 09:06:30 PM > > Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > cc: (bcc: Donald Leslie/CAM/Lotus) > > Subject: Re: website++ > > "Theodore W. Leung" wrote: > > > > I've done some minimal playing around with the top level website in > > xml-site, and have modified the styles to get rid of all the images. A > > version of the top level site using this style is viewable at > > http://www.apache.org/~twl/new-site/index.html > > Looks good. So I'm not sure I understand. What are you using to > generate that page? Cocoon2? > > > If people think that this is a good direction, then I'll keep working to > > finalize a simple style before tackling docbook. > > Yeah, I think it's a good direction. As for style, I see these options > for the source XML schema: > > + docbook = may be too complicated > + simplified docbook = may not be familiar to most > + xhtml = familiar to most, but may not be expressive enough > + stylebook.dtd = not widely used > > When I had to decide on one of these options a while ago, I chose xhtml > b/c it was familiar and I though that I could always transform it to > something else later, but it turns out that there might not be enough > info in the source to do that w/o hand tweaking the result. > > > > > Note: I am not a photoshop / image wizard, so the image bar at the top > > still looks ugly. Suggestions on what to do up there are more than > > welcome. > > I'm not much of an artist so I can't help here. :-) > > Thanks for taking this on. I know this has been discussed lots of times > in the past, but it seems to always get dropped b/c no one actually > works on it. > > -Edwin > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > In case of troubles, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > In case of troubles, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- In case of troubles, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
