On Sat, 2004-09-18 at 05:24, Dave Pawson wrote:
What rationale is there for remaining with the SGML toolchain?
However, and here is the double-good news: because of all the good work
we are doing here proving the capabilities and readiness of the latest
DocBook using XML,
those of us who are writing new guides (i.e., no
legacy SGML) _and_ who are not being translated
FWIW, this includes me. I *only* write in XML.
will get to choose to
use a parallel XML toolchain based on the FDP tools for the Enterprise
Linux 4 release ... well, probably nearly exactly the FDP tools with our
XSL
This is the hope, anyway. FDP certainly provides an excellent test case for a given toolchain.
However, we may end up with something entirely different, like a java-based system.
We may, e.g., decide that Saxon is more appropriate as an XSLT processor (due to its docbook & other extensions), and that FOP is adequate for our FO --> PDF needs, instead of having to revert to the tried & true jade/DSSSL combo for PDF output. XSLT and XSL-FO are simply easier to deal with than is DSSSL.
At any rate, we won't be committing to any new toolchain (and changing all RHEL docs over to XML) until after RHEL4 is released.
My $0.02, Mark
That means I'm writing 100% in XML, as soon as I take the few hours to convert my existing work from SGML. :-)
- Karsten
-- ---------------------------------------------------------- Mark Johnson <mjohnson@xxxxxxxxxx> OS Product Documentation Engineering, Red Hat, Inc. <http://www.redhat.com> Tel: 919.754.4151 Fax: 919.754.3708 GPG fp: DBEA FA3C C46A 70B5 F120 568B 89D5 4F61 C07D E242
