[cssed-devel] Format of documentation

[Michèle Garoche]

I know you are not pro that, but would you mind if I change the format
of doc from sgml to xml, as sgml is quite stagnant, not to mention the
dssl stysheets.

It makes outputs more and more ugly, compared to what can be done with
xml/xsl/css for all formats: ps, pdf, html.

This way, I can use docbook-dtd 4.4 and all its possibilities.

Michèle
<http://micmacfr.homeunix.org>

[Iago Rubio]

Post by Michèle Garoche
I know you are not pro that, but would you mind if I change the format
of doc from sgml to xml, as sgml is quite stagnant, not to mention the
dssl stysheets.
It makes outputs more and more ugly, compared to what can be done with
xml/xsl/css for all formats: ps, pdf, html.
This way, I can use docbook-dtd 4.4 and all its possibilities.

Will we use the jade transformation engine on the new format ?

[Michèle Garoche]

Post by Iago Rubio

Post by Michèle Garoche
I know you are not pro that, but would you mind if I change the format
of doc from sgml to xml, as sgml is quite stagnant, not to mention the
dssl stysheets.
It makes outputs more and more ugly, compared to what can be done with
xml/xsl/css for all formats: ps, pdf, html.
This way, I can use docbook-dtd 4.4 and all its possibilities.

Will we use the jade transformation engine on the new format ?

No, xslt stylesheets and saxon parser. Jade is really way out of date.

Michèle
<http://micmacfr.homeunix.org>

[Iago Rubio]

Post by Michèle Garoche

Post by Iago Rubio

Post by Michèle Garoche
I know you are not pro that, but would you mind if I change the format
of doc from sgml to xml, as sgml is quite stagnant, not to mention the
dssl stysheets.
It makes outputs more and more ugly, compared to what can be done with
xml/xsl/css for all formats: ps, pdf, html.
This way, I can use docbook-dtd 4.4 and all its possibilities.

Will we use the jade transformation engine on the new format ?

No, xslt stylesheets and saxon parser. Jade is really way out of date.

This will add a bad dependency to build the docs, that's Java.

I don't like to add a dependency to a non free package to build the
docs.

Saxon have not even packages for Linux but a zip, and is not in the most
common distros.

Are there other free software options avaiable ?

[Michèle Garoche]

Post by Iago Rubio

Post by Michèle Garoche

Post by Iago Rubio

Post by Michèle Garoche
I know you are not pro that, but would you mind if I change the format
of doc from sgml to xml, as sgml is quite stagnant, not to mention the
dssl stysheets.
It makes outputs more and more ugly, compared to what can be done with
xml/xsl/css for all formats: ps, pdf, html.
This way, I can use docbook-dtd 4.4 and all its possibilities.

Will we use the jade transformation engine on the new format ?

No, xslt stylesheets and saxon parser. Jade is really way out of date.

This will add a bad dependency to build the docs, that's Java.
I don't like to add a dependency to a non free package to build the
docs.
Saxon have not even packages for Linux but a zip, and is not in the most
common distros.

Java is free, Saxon is free.

Post by Iago Rubio
Are there other free software options avaiable ?

For pdf output, no.

Michèle
<http://micmacfr.homeunix.org>

[Iago Rubio]

[snip]

Post by Michèle Garoche

Post by Iago Rubio
Saxon have not even packages for Linux but a zip, and is not in the most
common distros.

Java is free, Saxon is free.

Java is free as beer, but not as speech. Saxon depends on Java :)

Post by Michèle Garoche

Post by Iago Rubio
Are there other free software options avaiable ?

For pdf output, no.

We should stuck in the old format then.

I will not ask to install a non open source package, for building docs.

All should be free - as speech - from the ground up.

At least upstream build scripts should depend only on open source
packages.

If it exists the posibility of improve something with non open source
tools, great. But I will not distribute packages with such dependencies.

At least not in the cssed project's page. May be I could do it in my
personal page, but only as an alternative.

Regards.

[Michèle Garoche]

Post by Iago Rubio
[snip]

Post by Michèle Garoche

Post by Iago Rubio
Saxon have not even packages for Linux but a zip, and is not in the most
common distros.

Java is free, Saxon is free.

Unless I've missed something, Sun as released Java as free open source
package last year.

Michèle
<http://micmacfr.homeunix.org>

[Iago Rubio]

Post by Michèle Garoche

Post by Iago Rubio
[snip]

Post by Michèle Garoche

Post by Iago Rubio
Saxon have not even packages for Linux but a zip, and is not in the most
common distros.

Java is free, Saxon is free.

Unless I've missed something, Sun as released Java as free open source
package last year.

Where is such distribution ?
http://java.com/en/download/license.jsp

[Michèle Garoche]

Post by Iago Rubio

Post by Michèle Garoche

Post by Iago Rubio
[snip]

Post by Michèle Garoche

Post by Iago Rubio
Saxon have not even packages for Linux but a zip, and is not in the most
common distros.

Java is free, Saxon is free.

Unless I've missed something, Sun as released Java as free open source
package last year.

Where is such distribution ?
http://java.com/en/download/license.jsp

You need no more than the virtual machine, it is integrated in any
system, no?

Oh, well, I don't discuss anymore on this. It leads to nowhere. Every
system has a part which is not open source, be it hardware, middleware
or software, hence with your logic, you cannot deliver anything.

And by the way, it is not mandatory to deliver the sources, just the
output, which can be done in a4 and us formats if needed.

Michèle
<http://micmacfr.homeunix.org>

[Iago Rubio]

Post by Michèle Garoche

Post by Iago Rubio

Post by Michèle Garoche

Post by Iago Rubio
[snip]

Post by Michèle Garoche

Post by Iago Rubio
Saxon have not even packages for Linux but a zip, and is not in the most
common distros.

Java is free, Saxon is free.

Unless I've missed something, Sun as released Java as free open source
package last year.

Where is such distribution ?
http://java.com/en/download/license.jsp

I'm sure you got confused with the Solaris OS that was opened by Sun
last year. But they retained licensing on Java.

Post by Michèle Garoche
You need no more than the virtual machine, it is integrated in any
system, no?

That's the problem.

As it's a non free package most Linux distributions don't ship it - well
no Linux distribution but Novell's one.

As it's not shipped by distributions, it does not fit in the system
update tools, and have no automatic updates.

Users should go to the Java.com page and accept a license to get the
software but it's not integrated in the software management system tools
at all.

Post by Michèle Garoche
Oh, well, I don't discuss anymore on this. It leads to nowhere. Every
system has a part which is not open source, be it hardware, middleware
or software, hence with your logic, you cannot deliver anything.

That's what should be changed. Computing is not bounded to closed
licenses, and a completely open system is nearest today than ever.

There's an open hardware movement, and an open bios project working
right now.

Open source software is a success and I'd like to continue contributing
to it. To use or require closed source tools, is not the way to achieve
the goal of completely free systems, but the way to spread dependencies
on closed systems.

I know it's a kind of zealotry, but well ... the only way to go for it
is being a bit zealot.

Post by Michèle Garoche
And by the way, it is not mandatory to deliver the sources, just the
output, which can be done in a4 and us formats if needed.

I know that, but I want to post the sources so anyone willing to help
could be able to contribute to the documentation.

If anyone offers help with the docs, I don't want to tell him he should
accept a closed license, and install closed source packages.

Take into account that downloading Java, you're accepting - among other
things - to pay even attorney fees if anyone hungry enough sues Sun for
something you made related with Java.

That's too much for lots of people.

With this I don't say I don't use Java. You can even download some Open
Source Java applications written by me long time ago.

But what I don't want to do is to make mandatory to install Java to
build the docs.

I could be all right if there are makefiles to use with saxon to get
better looking docs, but only if there are makefiles to use with open
source tools to achieve a ugliest - but usable - result.

Unfortunately, to maintain those dual build scripts will be a burden,
and lots of compatibility issues will arise sooner or later.

Is possible to build only the PDFs with saxon and the HTML with open
source tools ?

I suppose xsltproc can make the transformation from XML/XSLT to HTML.

Am I right ?