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

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

From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Date: 17 Oct 2001 13:18:51 -0400
To: spec-prod@w3.org
Message-ID: <878zeap4lg.fsf@Sun.COM>
/ "Eve L. Maler" <eve.maler@sun.com> was heard to say:
| >- The "meta" is quite different, XMLSpec has a whole bunch of W3C-specific
| >   metadata. This could (should?) be addressed by creating an XML namespace
| >   for the W3C metadata. The DocBook TC is evaluating what to do with meta
| >   and allowing namespaced meta seems like a good idea.
| It would need to allow it "wholesale" (you'd want to be able to pop in
| the whole W3C structure).  This would also be useful if we wanted to
| accommodate IETF documents (an idea mentioned in my message on RFEs).


| I just saw Dan's mail about using dc: metadata, which sounds like a
| fine idea too, as long as (a) W3C's pubrules are adhered to and (b)
| there's enough flexibility to add new types of header information,
| which XMLspec has had problems with in the past.

I think it would be great to re-evaluate document metadata from first
principals and come up with a modern, flexible design. The DocBook
metadata is from '94 which was a lifetime ago in internet time and
XMLSpec has definitely had some metadata issues as well.

| >- DocBook uses the CALS table model, XMLSpec uses HTML. (But they aren't
| >   that far apart, really.)
| I think DocBook should begin to allow HTML tables anyway...

Yeah. I think I'd be in favor of that, perhaps with a few optional
elements made required (I'm thinking of tbody, for example) or perhaps

| >Q1: Are we willing to break legacy in significant ways? Could the
| >     XMLSpec doctype be made more DocBook-like and vice versa?
| If we had buy-in from the community for the project, and if most/all
| of the changes could be accommodated with an XSLT transformation, and
| if stylesheets were available quickly for the new format...I bet there
| wouldn't be any problem.

I can do the stylesheets part :-)

| As long as there's a stylesheet to produce acceptable HTML (as Dan
| noted), there shouldn't be a problem.

So the question for "DocBook" W3C specs is almost entirely one of

| I see great promise in a merged schema.  But a harmonization project
| would need real resources to be done properly.

Yes, that's true.

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM   | The stone fell on the pitcher? Woe to the
XML Standards Engineer | pitcher. The pitcher fell on the stone? Woe to
XML Technology Center  | the pitcher.--Rabbinic Saying
Sun Microsystems, Inc. | 
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2001 13:18:53 UTC

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