From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-25 16:42:36
Douglas Gregor wrote:
> You mentioned that DocBook 5 is meant to be more extensible... might it
> possible for our C++ markup to be introduced into DocBook 5 as some kind
> of custom vocabulary? I'd love to minimize the distance between
> BoostBook and DocBook, but the need for Boost- and C++-specific features
> pushed them apart further than one would like. Perhaps with a more
> extensible DocBook 5, and Matias et. al.'s new work on the
> BoostBook/Quickbook toolchain, we can simplify things and move back
> closer to DocBook. But make no mistake: DocBook alone is insufficient
> for Boost, and standards are only useful when they solve your problems.
The reason I'm saying extensions will be easier to generate is that docbook 5
is specified by means of RelaxNG, not DTD.
I have no idea about how hard / sensible it is to attempt to either make
such changes get approval of the docbook technical commitee, or to keep
it in a separate profile. Such questions are best asked on the docbook list
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...