RE: Tags (searching)

[Gregory Leblanc <GLeblanc@cu-portland.edu>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Ferguson [mailto:gferg@hoop.timonium.sgi.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 4:10 PM
> To: Gary Preckshot; LDP; ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Tags (searching)
> 
> On Jun 13,  2:13pm, Gary Preckshot wrote:
> > Subject: Re: Tags (searching)
> > Greg Ferguson wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Once AGAIN I want to re-interate...
> > >
> > > 1) There is a tag/field/structured search capability that
> > >    is near completion -- the OMF metadata framework.
> > >
> > >    Please see http://metalab.unc.edu/osrt/omf/

Hmm, that's significantly cooler than I'd thought that it was.  What's the
current status on this project?  Has anybody looked at a way to
automatically update/create this information from the documents when they
are submitted to the LDP?

[snip]
> btw, (side-note) there is a DocBook "lite" or "Simplified" DocBook
> XML DTD that is under development -
> http://nwalsh.com/docbook/simple/index.html
> Not much to it; chops the DTD down to 104 elements (from 300+).

I've taken a look at it, and I don't see any advantages to using that
instead of DocBook.

> > After all, DocBook Articles are not HOWTOs.
> 
> Why not? What's missing? Or are you saying <article>
> embodies too much "freedom" for a howto?

That was the impression that I got.  I'm still not completely decided on
whether or not a template can fulfill the requirements for guiding authors
to building a good document.

> > DocBook was not written specifically for howtos. It was
> > written to accommodate all sorts of documents up to, and
> > including, books. By using a subset of tags, LDP
> > retains standardization (what can be non-standard
> > about using standard tags as defined by the
> > standard?). By additionally defining a set of tags
> > that set off search fields, LDP uses SGML in one
> > of the ways envisioned when the standard was
> > promulgated.
> 
> What happens when a DocBook-tagged document is submitted that
> absolutely parses/build/validates 100% with the *standard* toolset,
> using the *standard* DocBook DTD, yet the LDP rejects it due to
> an additional tag or two that we don't want to have used?
> Does that make sense for the LDP? I don't believe so.

Probably not.  If that was the case, then we'd be looking at a custom DTD,
which would then NOT be DocBook.  The key question is whether or not a
TEMPLATE (as in a document containing no content, that is designed to be
filled in) can provide enough structure for prospective authors.

> To recap :
> 
> - I agree with stating that deprecated tags should not be used.
> 
> - I agree with *guiding* the author via templates and examples
>   on how certain tags should be used/implemented. This can and
>   should be made very clear.
> 
> - I agree with stating how/why certain tags should be *included*
>   and for what purpose (ie searching). The author then is
>   clued into the benefit of following the guidelines and template.
> 
> - I am against proposing any sort of limiting tag set beyond
>   the exclusion of deprecated tags. Let the DTD control that (and
>   the display/presentation controlled via a DSSSL 
>   customization layer).

How strong do we make the templates, assuming that they are enough?  Do we
do something like the GDP did, and go in and hack up work that people have
done because it differs from the template?  That's clearly bad, and they got
stung.  How do we make a template that's HELPFUL to the authors, and doesn't
restrict them?
	Greg


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org