Re: Tags (searching)

["Greg Ferguson" <gferg@hoop.timonium.sgi.com>]

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/
> ...
> If we weren't talking about it, you wouldn't have
> been able to post the above. If you'd been more
> talkative about what you were doing, we wouldn't
> be talking about what we're talking about. It must
> be evident that a whole lot of folks have no idea
> what's going on behind closed doors, or somebody
> besides yourself would have mentioned it.

I never said we should not be talking about it. The information
has been posted quite frequently over the last few months (by
both Paul Jones and myself) and it is also part of the LDP "to do"
list found at:  http://www.linuxdoc.org/todo.html  (item #23).
I'm not doing this behind any closed door.


> > I also tend to believe that setting up "tag sets" is far too limiting
> > and taking the inherent power of the SGML away from the author.
>
> SGML was designed specifically to limit authors.

I thought it was to empower a document (and therefore an author)
with structure, rather than having to rely on the (limiting)
presentation-only aspects of a content piece.


> DTDs prescribe a structure for documents and
> DocBook is an exception - a general DTD - , where
> the intention was to have corporate DTDs or
> publisher DTDs that permitted the corporation or
> publisher to format the document the way they
> wanted after the author wrote it. So what
> "inherent power" are you talking about?

See my previous comment; and what I mentioned before:

 "The DTD is already designed/constructed to allow for "tag sets",
  dependant upon the top-level container tag chosen - <book> or
  <article>."

Why must we go beyond that? Other than stating the deprecated tags,
and making sure they are not used (which I wholeheartedly agree with),
the template should *guide* the author as to what should be used,
and how it should be used (date and version number formats
come to mind). I do not believe it should not limit the use of
any non-deprecated tags (imo) that are accepted in the DTD.

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+).

> ...
> It doesn't lead us astray from using the standard.
> It just delineates sets of tags that LDP is using
> for specific purposes, and deprecates the use of
> tags that give LDP tools problems or are going to
> disappear from DocBook. DocBook is so big, the LDP
> may want to restrict the use of some tags because
> they don't contribute to the "look and feel" that
> LDP wants in its howtos.

You're talking style/presentation. We can handle that
thru DSSSL customization, if necessary.

> After all, DocBook Articles are not HOWTOs.

Why not? What's missing? Or are you saying <article>
embodies too much "freedom" for a howto?

> 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.


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).


Ferg


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