> > Well, I cannot fully understand how this is related, or
> > how this holds an opinion of yours, but HTML is the
> > only format going to be supported for offline help
> > on MS platforms in the following few years. They
> > will release MS Help 2.0 the next year. It supports
> > XML for TOC specifications, but HTML is the format
> > for Help content.
> >
> > Or is your comment related to use XSL instead of
> > DSSSL, pointing to DSSSL with the LaTeX analogy?
>
> No, if XSLT works better as DSSSL, why not use it. HTML would be a
> step in the wrong direction. XML is the future and I don´t rely on
> MS. Sure you can only display HTML in most browsers, but this can
> change in future.
As I said, I am on the side of using XSL. Well, it will
break my script, but that's just to proove it was a bad
concept ;) I know I need to work with it more, but as
a usual programmer, I say sometimes: "it works, why to
modify the code?" ;) So do not consider my misleading
path of generating HTML from HTML a reason not to switch
to XSL. This was just a sidenote from me... I hope
I'll be able to make all the customizations in XSLT,
let's say till the end of the summer, but I need to go
deep into it. I would like to go deep into it, regardless
of what we choose here to use. Even HTML Help generation
can use XSLT, if the phpdoc tree is not switched to XSLT
completely.
We can maybe consider two factors to improve performance:
a) Use a restricted style sheet, with only the rules for
the tags we use (maybe makes processing quicker),
considering that we only use a little subset of DocBook
b) Use a custom (but more general) app for generating HTML
output from XML. Damien uses such an app to generate
quite customized pages for the FR docs at Nexen.
Goba
