Bug#175064: DocBook XML conversion is read with this script
On Mon, 2017-02-20 at 13:16:25 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> writes:
> > I've found the problem with the wrong spacing, which was due to tidy(1),
> > I've played now with xmllint(1) and pandoc(1), but disabled the initial
> > cleanup for now (branch updated). So the converted XML is not indented,
> > but I'm not sure if you are fine with that.
>
> I'm totally fine with that. I honestly don't care whether the generated
> XML is particularly readable. It would be minorly nice, but meh, it's an
> output format, and very few people are ever going to look at it. If it
> makes maintenance easier, let's not worry about it.
Oh, I guess I was not clear, I was referring to the XML converted from
the SGML, which will become the new source from where all output
formats will be generated, so it would definitely be looked at (I'd
hope! :).
If you run the script, you'll see the resulting converted output, if
that looks fine, then, good. :)
> > I'm including a patchset which fixes several things that will make the
> > conversion easier, and I think they are correct independently of the
> > conversion.
>
> Thanks! These have all been applied.
Perfect, thanks!
> > The remaining possible output issues/differences are:
>
> > * The Abstract and Copyright Notice end up w/o any heading, so it's
> > a bit hard to distinguish.
> > * The authors are listed at the top of the documents instead of at
> > the bottom.
> > * The policy version and date are not output.
> > * The upgrading-checklist.xml output generates a TOC, the new
> > html-notoc.dsl needs to be hooked into the build machinery to
> > avoid that.
> > * The PDF/PS output for policy.xml probably needs some tuning.
> > * The build dependencies might need checking for additions or
> > removals.
> > * The XML is not shipped for some of the converted documents, I'm
> > not sure why the SGML was being shipped before?
>
> I don't think there's any need to ship the SGML in the installed package.
>
> Honestly, all of this sounds minor enough that I would be very tempted to
> just pull the trigger and do the conversion.
Sounds good to me. I can probably check several of those over time
once this is merged in.
In which case I can rebase, check that everything is fine, and resend
the scripts to run the conversion to the bug.
> > OTOH, the output seems less cluttered which looks like an improvement
> > to me.
>
> Yeah, that's been one of the things that's made me unhappy about the text
> output for some time.
>
> Thank you for working on this!
No problem!
Thanks,
Guillem
Reply to: