This is the mail archive of the
docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
mailing list for the DocBook project.
Re: Re: details of DocBook versioning policy
- To: docbook at lists dot oasis-open dot org
- Subject: Re: DOCBOOK: Re: details of DocBook versioning policy
- From: Norman Walsh <ndw at nwalsh dot com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 09:14:22 -0400
- List-Id: <docbook.lists.oasis-open.org>
- References: <F3g57uuBWzYZ3bIRp4h0000558b@hotmail.com>
/ "Matt G." <matt_g_@hotmail.com> was heard to say:
| BTW, does the TC use any sort of regression suite (e.g. documents that
| use each aspect of the content model from a given DTD version that are
| validated against each new DTD from the same major rev)? It doesn't
| seem like it'd be much work to maintain, once setup.
The TC has no official regression suite. I have a bunch of test docs
that I try and we post betas well in advance of the actual release in
the hope that everyone will try the new version with their favorite
content.
| >I've tried to make the stylesheets support all versions of the DTD.
| >Most of our backwards incompatible changes have, in fact, been
| >fairly minor.
|
| How big of a limitation has this been? How much additional work has
| it required?
Not much. We've very rarely changed existing semantics, the only
backwards incompatible changes that I can think of involved no longer
supporting a given element or a given element in a particular
context. But the template or contruction rules for the element still
exist, so it just works out.
| I'd like to think that the best approach for writing stylesheets is to
| maintain them as specific to the DTD's major rev. Perhaps all the
| commonality between the various major revs can be factored out into a
| common module that they all share, though it's debatable which
| approach results in a higher maintenance burden. This is certainly
| the approach I'll consider, in devising my customization layer.
That turns out to be a pain. Consider the introduction of db31.dsl which
was mostly along exactly those lines. Now I often get irritated by the
fact that some functionality is in dbXXX.dsl but some is also in db31.dsl.
For DocBook, I think it's simpler to treat the stylesheets as stylesheets
over the union of DTD versions.
| BTW, I noticed that the Apache XML group used a non-DocBook
| documentation format, for their fairly substantial, XML-based
| documentation on Xerces (their C++/Java validating DOM/SAX XML
| parser). Does anyone know why (I asked them, but have yet to receive
| a reply)? I couldn't even find a mention of docbook, in the mailing
| list archives (other than regarding issues their libraries had w/ it).
It's been discussed more than once, so it should be in the archives.
I don't represent Apache, but my recollection from watching the
discussions go by is that it is mostly a matter of inertia. They did
their DTD (stylebook?) before they noticed that DocBook existed and
now they've got tools and legacy.
| _________________________________________________________________
| Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
No, thank you :-)
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | One should never make one's debut
http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | with a scandal. One should reserve
Chair, DocBook Technical Committee | that to give interest to one's old
| age.--Oscar Wilde
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>