Re: RFC Implementation of SGML/XML Proposal for LSB in Debian
Mark Johnson (mark@phy.duke.edu) wrote:
> >
> > Below is an RFC for the implementation of the SGML/XML Proposal for the LSB
> > (version 0.3) in Debian. I've send this to several mailing list to give it
> > broad attention, but please keep all the further discussion on debian-sgml.
> > All affected package maintainers please subscribe to debian-sgml.
> >
> > The complete proposal can be found at
> >
> > http://dulug.duke.edu/~mark/debian/sgml/bischoff/
>
> BTW, the sgml component of the proposal is also part if the LSB 0.4.1 RFC.
> The content is the same as the copy above, but the rationale is not included.
> LSB is taking comments until Wednesday January 24th, 2001. It's here:
>
> http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/spec/lsbsgml.html
>
> Here are my comments.
>
> XSL Stylesheet Comment
> ------------------
>
> -- We need a mechanism for docbook-related XSL stylesheets to refer to the main
> DocBook XSL Stylesheet (dbxsl) distribution.
> Example: DocBook Website Stylesheets reference sheets from the dbxsl distribution.
>
> At present we (I, anyway) do this by only allowing one version of the dbxsl to exist on a
> system -- same as Adam does with the DSSSL style sheets. The difference between xsl
> and dsssl is that presently there is no catalog mechanism for the xsl stylesheets, which
> will make importing more difficult. Here's a basic description of the situation:
>
> Presently the distributions sit in an nwalsh/ subdirectory of the
> /usr/lib/sgml/stylesheet/docbook/[xsl or dsssl]/] stylesheet tree with the same
> largely-flat layout as the upstream source, like so:
>
> nwalsh/
> common/
> ...
> print/
> html/
>
> Note: No version numbers are in this tree --
> as are suggested by the bischoff sgml/lsb proposal.
>
> In the xsl case, I've been installing additional stylesheets into the same nwalsh/ subdir,
> the result of which looks like this:
>
> nwalsh/
> common/
> ...
> print/
> html/
> website/[possible versioned subdirs here]
>
> The point:
>
> The website stylesheets must import html/docbook.xsl from the main distribution,
> which I do by a relative path:
>
> <xsl:import href="../html/docbook.xsl"/>
>
> This won't work with the proposed scheme, which will now have version-numbered
> directories for the docbook xsl stylesheets.
>
> What to do?
> - Don't allow multiple versions of _main_ docbook-xsl-stylesheets. They really are upgrades,
> making it unnecessary to do so. (Norm Walsh, upstream developer also made this point.)
>
> - Use the /etc/alternatives system to establish links that can be configured.
> The link could be top-level:
> /usr/share/sgml/docbook/xsl-stylesheets <--
>
> - Ask Norm -- Maybe a catalog mechanism for the xsl stylesheets is in the works??
For now I suggest we use /etc/alternatives (or direct symlinks) to handle this, also
based on Norm's reply.
> -----
>
> Directory Structure Comment:
> ---------------------
> On the proposed directory structure -- grouped by classes of dtds rather than file function:
>
> -Current dir structure:
>
> /usr/[share or lib]/sgml/
> dtd/
> stylesheet/
> entities/
>
> -Proposed:
>
> /usr/share/sgml/docbook/
> sgml-dtd-3.1/
> sgml-dtd-4.0/
> xml-dtd-4.0/ (the DocBook DTD)
> dsssl-stylesheets-1.54/
> xsl-stylesheets-1.12/
>
> Wouldn't a hybrid of the two make much more sense? Something like:
>
> /usr/share/sgml/docbook/
> dtd/
> stylesheet/
> entities/
>
> The proposed structure looks unnecessarily messy, and harder to maintain.
> Perhaps the authors of the proposal haven't encountered the xsl stylesheet
> problem -- I don't see any rpms for them.
>
> I'm going to submit this "hybrid" idea to LSB as part of their RFC, unless
> someone here feels strongly that the present proposal is a better solution.
I agree completely with your proposal! For docbook the setup in the proposal
might make sense, but for e.g. something like the HTML stuff in sgml-data it's
rather overdone.
> Terminology Comment
> ----------------
>
> I think the proposed use of the term "SGML Application" as
>
> Any program used to view, edit, convert, process or apply any kind of
> treatment to a document written using a SGML or XML DTD.
>
> is not a good idea.
>
> The term is already in wide use and has a very specific meaning:
> An application of SGML, or SGML application, refers to a DTD.
> (For example, see http://xml.coverpages.org/gen-apps.html )
>
> Adoption of this term will surely create mass confusion.
> I suggest the term "Component" instead, as used informally by
> Cees de Groot, the sgml-tools guy.
Agreed.
Thanks,
Ardo
--
Ardo van Rangelrooij
home email: ardo@debian.org
home page: http://people.debian.org/~ardo
PGP fp: 3B 1F 21 72 00 5C 3A 73 7F 72 DF D9 90 78 47 F9
Reply to: