Re: RFC: lsb implementation proposal
Mark Johnson <mark@phy.duke.edu> writes:
> So, it sounds like you're OK with the general scheme I propose. Is that right?
Yup.
> And the "custom" docbook subdirectory? It's an entirely new addition,
> but seems like the only solution.
Seems good to me.
> Adam Di Carlo writes:
> >
> > Some comments. I did some work on sgml-data trying to get it ready for
> > the new scheme. Some ambiguities arose.
>
> not surprised. It needs to be fleshed out a bit.
>
> > section 2.1.2: add the corresponding entries such as
> > xml-iso-entities-8879.1986 in the new structure.
>
> I have no experience with the iso entities, so your input is key....
>
> Should we put them in a subdirectory named something like
> "xml-iso-entities-8879.1986", or simply dump them in the entities
> directory w/o a subdirectory, as is done presently in
> /usr/lib/sgml/entities?
Well, the LSB spec has them in their own dir, and I'm ok with that.
They make it a top-level dir, and I think we would put it under
/usr/share/sgml/entities ...
> And, what about all those FPI-based symlinks? Are we (meaning you, I
> guess) planning to retain that structure? If so, we should add a
> section that is explicit about when and when not to create them.
They should be retained - they are already described in
/usr/share/doc/sgml-base/sgml_layout and sgml-catalog-check.pl from
sgml-data (which ought to move to sgml-base) will create them
automatically.
> > Add rationale that common or minor dtds, declarations, entities go in
> > /usr/share/sgml/{dtd,entities,declaration}, whereas "well known" DTDs
> > get their own top-level /usr/share/sgml/<name> directory.
>
> Sure. Do you mean to add the "well-known" statement to 3.1.1.1
> "Directory Creation Guidelines", or to the dtd usage notes in 3.1.1?
>
> > For the above well-known DTDs, do they all replicate
> > /usr/share/sgml/<name>/{dtd,entities,declaration} ?
>
> No. There is no "entities" or "declaration" directory for a given dtd, only
>
> /usr/share/sgml/<well-known-dtd>
>
> custom/
> dtd/
> stylesheet/
>
> The entities are usually distributed with the dtd (in ent/), so we
> should preserve that structure for ease of packaging. Same goes for
> the non-xml declarations.
Ok.
> If we leave it all as-is, Norm's catalogs will work without change.
>
> > Where would I put, for instance, XHTML 1.0 and 1.1 ? Perhaps
> > /usr/share/sgml/xhtml/1.{0,1} ? Or, more like docbook,
> > /usr/share/sgml/html/dtd/xml/1.{0,1} ?
>
> Yeah, I thought about that one myself.
>
> I'd go with /usr/share/sgml/xhtml/1.{0,1} for a numnber of reasons:
>
> - there's no corresponding sgml directory (OK, maybe HTML 4.01 Strict)
>
> - it's likely that xhtml/ would be the _only_ directory under xml/,
> thereby making xml/ pointless
>
> Sound OK?
I have no problem but be aware that your last point is wrong -- there
is xhtml-modular, xhtml-basic, and probably a lot of variants going to
be added there. I already know of ruby and xhtml/xpointer stuff.
> HTML is a special case, anyway.
Why? I wouldn't think xhtml would be that much different from, say,
docbk-xml.
--
.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
Reply to: