Re: question about docbook*simple

[Michael Smith <smith@xml-doc.org>]

For what they're worth, my 2 cents on the questions about packaging of
the Simplified DocBook DTD and Slides doctype.

Susan Kleinmann <sgk@kleinmann.com> writes:

> We have a package named docbook-xml-simple, which is quite out of date.
> I propose installing a new package called docbook-simple, to conflict
> with and replace docbook-xml-simple.  The reasons are:
> 
> a) There isn't any docbook-sgml-simple, so there's no need to distinguish
>    docbook-xml-simple from docbook-simple.

docbook-simple makes sense to me.

> b) The docbook-simple DTD has undergone a significant version numbering 
>    change.  Whereas the last version of docbook-xml-simple was 4.1.2.4,
>    the version of the current release of docbook-simple is 1.0CR2.  I would
>    guess that adopting this new version numbering scheme would require at least
>    an epoch change.

That makes sense to me also.

> c) The package docbook-xml-simple came with several versions of the simplified
>    DocBook DTD, corresponding to various versions of the DTD for DocBook 
>    itself.  This suggests that docbook-simple is a case where one might
>    want to keep around old versions of the package.  The package
>    docbook-simple could just co-exist with docbook-xml-simple.

It seems like it'd be better to have docbook-simple completely supersede
docbook-xml-simple, as you suggested initially. The only good reason I
can think of to keep docbook-xml-simple around would be if docs authored
using Simplified 4.1.2.4 could not be validated using Simplfied 1.0CR2+
(that is, if 1.0CR2+ were not backward-compatible with 4.1.2.4).

But as far as I know, no backwards-incompatible changes were introduced
between 4.1.2.4 and 1.0CR2 (and none will be unless/until there is a 2.0
Simplified release). So any "legacy" 4.1.2.4/docbook-xml-simple docs
should still validate against 1.0CR2+.

But you might want to check with Norm Walsh to confirm that.

> This matters because docbook-slides (which is no longer in the archive,
> but which I would like to resurrect with its newer version) depends on 
> a new-ish version of docbook-simple.
> 
> Therefore, if there was some agreement on how the new version of the
> simplified DocBook DTD should be packaged, I could proceed to finish
> packaging the new version of docbook-slides.

The latest Slides release depends on Simplified 1.0CR2, so it seems like
your initial suggestions to go with the name docbook-simple and have the
package conflict with and replace docbook-xml-simple are the way to go.

HTH,

  --Mike Smith