The Publishers customization is just that -- a modular reorganization of
the schemas, removing the technical and software documentation elements.
The aim is to have an "official" DocBook customization, geared to the
needs of publishers.
Best regards,
--Scott
Dave Pawson wrote:
> Mike Maxwell wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Which is good, since that is just where it originated!
>
>
> 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.
>
> Then you need to persuade all the other docbook users that your usage
> is more important, better centre field etc, than the current set?
>
>
>> 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.
>
> I guess we all use docbook for different purposes.
> If you're bothered by the high tag count, you could create
> your own subset, removing those elements you don't want,
> for your own use.
> Makes using a syntax directed editor easier.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> regards
>
> --
> Dave Pawson
> XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
> http://www.dpawson.co.uk
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:
>
