W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > October to December 2001

Re: spec-prod, xmlspec, docbook and Co.

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 12:39:04 -0400
Message-ID: <3BCDB428.C4F820B9@w3.org>
To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Cc: spec-prod@w3.org
Norman Walsh wrote:
> - XMLSpec tag names are often HTML-derived so they tend to be shorter.
>   (e.g. <p> vs. <para>, <att> vs. <sgmltag class='attribute'>.)

I would say that's the job of the editor so we should not let us stopped
by this issue.

> - XMLSpec has more "special purpose" elements (e.g., <specref/>,
>   <bibref/>, etc.  where DocBook has just <xref/>).

I would suggest to keep the XMLspec format here (and in general to always
prefer the "special purpose" elements over a general element). I don't know
about the XSL but the DOM generator is doing different manipulation depending
on the element (specref, xspecref or bibref).

> Q1: Are we willing to break legacy in significant ways? Could the
>     XMLSpec doctype be made more DocBook-like and vice versa?

This will force the DOM working group to revise its DOM generator and the
XSL for the DOM Test Suites but it is possible to do it. I'm waiting for
more feedback before asking the group directly.

> Q3: Can this be addressed organizationally? Could the W3C be persuaded
>     to accept DocBook documents as specs? Could OASIS be persuaded to
>     accept XMLSpec?

As Dan pointed out, the W3C has no constraint on tools used to produce as long
as the resulting document HTML valid and conforms to the W3C style. I don't
think that all working groups are ready to switch to XML yet unfortunately. We
will need to ask/persuade the working groups who are currently using xmlspec to
switch to the new format.

Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2001 12:39:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:16 UTC