Re: [xsl] Re: [MISC] How was the XSLT 2.0 norm written (tools, format)

Subject: Re: [xsl] Re: [MISC] How was the XSLT 2.0 norm written (tools, format)
From: Dave Pawson <davep@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 13:18:29 +0000
On 23/01/10 13:02, Alain wrote:
Thanks Abel, and many thanks for your explainations Michael.

I suspected it was a flavour of XML/XSLT. I did the same for my own
websites, creating a semi-specific XML grammar (basically XHTML with a
limited number of "extensions") and some XSLT customised to my requirements.

But for professional use your pointer to a standard such as Docbook is
much better that creating something specific from scratch, and I'll
definitely promote this kind of solution.

Or for a website, there is a subset of docbook specifically for that. http://wiki.docbook.org/topic/DocBookWebsites and http://www.dpawson.co.uk/docbook/website/ for the older version, or http://www.dpawson.co.uk/docbooksetup/ for a v5.0 derivative.



I just hope I could also convince my boss to hire someone skilled enough on these publication topics to advise us (better than people who think MS-Word is the best format ever to do such publications!) It would be a precious help as some subject like cross referencing documentation (your explanations) might still be lacking support in Docbook. And there's still issue to handle such as versionning (subversion?), concurrent updating,...

http://wiki.docbook.org/topic/DocBookDiscussion has mailing lists with some very helpful people, and all the docbook expertise there is.







regards

--
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

Current Thread