[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: debiandoc vs. docbook



On Sat, Sep 21, 2002 at 09:05:42AM -0700, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 08:27:32AM -0400, Susan Kleinmann wrote:
> > 3. We should (soon) transform the debiandoc files that we now have to 
> >    docbook-xml using, e.g., the script written by Ardo van Rangelrooij:
> >    http://lists.debian.org/debian-doc/2002/debian-doc-200205/msg00183.html
> >    In any case, we should agree on a script or process to do the 
> >    transformation, because without that, in order to ensure some uniformity 
> >    in the transformation of all the documents to a new DTD.
> 
> Reminder for URL in above postings.
> 
> correct: http://www.teaser.fr/~pbatailler/Debiandoc2docbookxml.tar.gz
> wrong:   http://www.teaser.fr/~pbatailler/Debiandoc2docbook-xml.tar.gz
> 
> README:
> "debiandoc2docbookxml" normalizes the sgml file (with sgml2xml) but not
> yet the files that are loaded by the internal subset of the dtd. So
> you must do it manually : the main problems are : missing semi-colon
> after an entity reference, %  or < ... not escaped, conditional sections
> in the internal subset...
> 
> I think, considering many debiandoc including mine use files that are
> loaded by the internally, I need to know what above problems are and how
> exactly fix them.

After few trials, it seems this script convert debiandoc SGML to XML by

$ ./debiandoc2docbookxml -b -s foo.sgml

(without options, I got practically nothing.  Output looked like
DocBook)

But I still do not understand why these options are needed nor is this
right (I do not know XML stylesheet things).  Also, I do not have build
script.

Osamu
-- 
~\^o^/~~~ ~\^.^/~~~ ~\^*^/~~~ ~\^_^/~~~ ~\^+^/~~~ ~\^:^/~~~ ~\^v^/~~~ +++++
        Osamu Aoki @ Cupertino CA USA, GPG-key: A8061F32
 .''`.  Debian Reference: post-installation user's guide for non-developers
 : :' : http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/reference/ also http://qref.sf.net
 `. `'  "Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software" --- Social Contract



Reply to: