On Sun, 2006-02-12 at 07:45 -0800, Karsten Wade wrote: > <stickster> I am still curious... why did we move to XInclude to start > with? > > Here's my small stack of reasons: [...snip...] Thanks, good for future reference too. > Also, I'm wondering if this header is properly formed: > > <!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//OASIS//DTD DocBook V4.4//EN" > "http://www.docbook.org/xml/4.4/docbookx.dtd";> > > Shouldn't there be an 'XML' between 'DocBook' and 'V4.4'? Just so. I went ahead and committed this just now since I didn't see any such changes upon updating. > I'm going to check all these changes in for now, so that we can work > together to hack through. My error output seems related to the $PWD of > the XIncluded file. I'm working my way through until I probably end up > with just having all the legal notice stuff within the language-specific > areas of the module as a hack-around. I had a thought about this... Why not include the actual <para> elements in extended entities, and then XInclude either a <section> or <legalnotice> element that wraps the extended entity? That way we can put a standard DocBook XML prolog in all docs and go with XInclude in the generated fdp-info-*.xml document. I haven't tried this but I'll meet you on IRC today to discuss. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
