This is the mail archive of the
docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
mailing list for the DocBook project.
Re: [docbook] Ruminations on the future of DocBook
On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 07:33:41PM +0100, Dave Pawson wrote:
> Another perspective on this is that they are (programming language
> specific) extension elements?
> Which could be viewed as being out of scope of the base layer.
>
> Perhaps markup could be 'really semantic' if each language added its own
> extensions and processing
> (or mapping to common styling).
> My question then is, would that level of semantic markup be valuable in
> usage?
Um, isn't that the whole point of DocBook? If that level of semantic
markup (which exists today), then why aren't people marking up their
class documentation with <literal> and <emphasis>? (Or are they?)
> I have this nasty suspicion that many... some... a few
> users, chose docbook because:
> 1. Its XML (durable)
> 2. Produces HTML and print.
> and the elements used are to [some... large..] extent chosen based on the
> output?
> I could be wrong.
I don't understand your concern. Are you inferring that namespaced
extensions to DocBook *wouldn't* have a canonical display in HTML/Print?
If that's the issue, it's easily solvable. The Scheme world won't
accept an extension to the language without a reference implementation.
Extensions to DocBook could be adopted only when there's a schema,
XSLT customization layers, and documentation on the tags, content models
and extensions to the base format.
As a foundation vocabulary, DocBook and it's core stylesheets would
still be immensely useful: hard things like tables and chunking would
always be available via the core format.
Z.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-help@lists.oasis-open.org