Hi Seb, 2009/9/9 Sebastien Lelong <[email protected]>: >>> >>> As an alternative, as sometime you can see in books, we can specifically >>> say it comes from a blog. Each chapter (or section, I don't know) is then >>> authored by someone, explaining the whole. >> >> For appendix, it's okay to say it is from a blog, but not withinn a >> 'book'. And if we want to prevent duplication of (similar) documentation, we >> also need to deal with the difference between the main topics (as used in >> the tutorials and introduction) and all the gory details (for the full >> manual). > > Do we really need to be that formal ?? I'd rather not, but I hope it is a solution to a problem I suspect. But maybe there is no problem or there are better solutions. So please enlighten me!
>> I would suggest an other approach (which probably needs a preprocessor for >> the dita files). >> - each chapter is a file, authored by someone. >> - we define labels for each target, like tutorial, introduction, reference >> (and a few more, probably 6-8). >> - in the document we can put xml tags to include or exclude the content >> for a specific target, e.g. like >> <include_for_target>tutorial</include_for_target>. >> >> I don't know how difficult it is to create such a pre-processor or if it >> is workable solution for most authors without a major course on jallib >> document writing... >> > > I don't see your point about labeling. Would you like ditamap automatically > built ? Something like "get all document labeled with "tutorial", and put > the whole in this section" ? How will you deal with the order ? I think just > manually assemble ditamap should be enough (pick an intro, pick some theory, > few tutorials, mix... and voila, a new book). It is not about automatic build (although, in time...) It is about how the introduction document is created: we named the topics (say chapters), then for each we wrote an introduction and copied the tutorial and deleted large parts of it. But if one day there is some change (say, introduction of alias), we need to update the tutorials *and* the introduction document derived from it. A double (triple, quadruple) maintenance burden... > With XML, many things can be done, still you have a strict DTD to respect. > We can derive from a DTD and enrich XML, adapt XSL stylesheets, but then > it'll be a real p.i.t.a... IMO. This is not what I propose. What I propose is that we create an extended dtd for our source and an xsl to convert our source to a valid dita document. In other words: a thin pre-processor. Joep --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
