On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 07:11:32 -0400
Stefan Seefeld <> wrote:
> On 04/06/2010 02:56 AM, Dave Pawson wrote:
> > On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 22:22:05 -0400
> > Stefan Seefeld<> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> In fact, I hope that a similar strategy may be chosen for other
> >> ports, such as the Website and Slides vocabularies, when they are
> >> ported to DocBook 5.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Perhaps that's a good GSOC idea? Designing
> > a strategy to 'part' docbook into sub-vocabs
> > and provide a mechanism whereby any pairing could
> > integrate without problems.
> >
>
> Do you thinking of this as a separate project ? I was hoping that
> such conceptual / design work could be part of the existing "applied"
> projects such as the one we are discussing here, or the two others
> about Website and Slides.
IMHO website and slides are 'different' from, say, a poetry extension
or a PHP or C++ specific extension?
the latter add elements|attributes, perhaps remove some, i.e.
customize the tagset. Website and slides may do so in a little way,
but it is largely in the transformation to an output format that
the work lies?
If someone is concentrating on generating a new vocabulary for XXx
then how that fits with other YYY customizations won't be at the top
of their priority list?
That would be the concern.
regards
--
regards
--
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk
