Hi Mike, et al,
We have endeavored to simply the content models from full DocBook by
including only those elements that make sense for most publishers. As a
result, the Publishers schema (which is a customization layer) retains
212 core DocBook elements, removes 149 elements and redefines a handful.
We're still trying to crank out an approved spec, but details on the
elements are listed here:
http://wiki.docbook.org/topic/PublishersMinimalElements?highlight=(publishers)
The way we've written the schema (based on DocBook v5.0 using RelaxNG)
is in a modular fashion, so if you need any of the technical elements,
say to create a book on software, it is easy to include the software module.
Any additions we've created are what we have perceived as "gaps" - e.g.
poetry and dialogue.
The minutes from our meetings are posted here:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/docbook-publishers/
Hope this helps. We would appreciate any additional feedback or
participation (you must be an OASIS member to join).
Best regards,
--Scott
Mike Maxwell wrote:
> Scott Hudson wrote:
>> There isn't a "play" element, but we've added dialogue and poetry.
>> Take a look at those and the samples.
>
> First I'd heard that there was a DocBook subcommittee(s?) for other
> kinds of documents. I went to what I guess is the webpage for this
> subcommittee:
>
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=docbook-publishers
>
> (there's a page at www.oasis-open.org/committees/, but it seems to be
> more general than DocBook). The above page looks to be rather out of
> date (next meeting is 2 May last year, and the links to the SC Charter
> and the FAQ are broken). Then there's
> http://shudson310.blogspot.com/2007/03/docbook-subcommittee-for-publishers.html
> which talks about "official DocBook variant_s_" (emphasis mine). Where
> are the other variants described, and is there a timeframe for them?
>
> Where can I go to find out more? The mailing list archives require a
> SourceForge account to view them, which I suppose I can create, but
> which seems superfluous for read-only access.
>
> I'll also mention that one of the things that bothers me about the
> current DocBook is that it seems to be so oriented towards computer
> documentation. Of course one can pare it down, but I wonder why all
> those computer-related tags in there in the first place, instead of in
> one or more separate add-in modules? In other words, I would like to
> use DB for my purpose (grammar writing) by taking a bare-bones DB and
> adding any modules I might need, rather than taking a "fat" DB and
> modifying my local schema to omit all the tags I don't need.
>
> Along these lines, the Scope of Work on the SC webpage mentions *adding*
> "support for features specific to the publishing industry." My personal
> hope is that these additions stay in add-in modules, rather than
> increasing the size of the existing DB standard.
>
> Of course maybe I misunderstand, and my doubts are being addressed in
> some other way.
> --
> Mike Maxwell
> "We signify something too narrow when we say:
> Man is a grammatical animal. For although there
> is no animal except man with a knowledge of grammar,
> yet not every man has a knowledge of grammar."
> --Martianus Capella, "The Seven Liberal Arts"
>
> P.S. Scott: I may be old, but I don't take a metal detector to the
> beach. Yet.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:
>
