new pages

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

new pages

Bruce D'Arcus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Which way?

Johan Kool
Hello!

There are a few things a bit unclear about the aim of this project. I
understand that having a cite processor build with xslt is very useful.
But how is it going to be used when done?

To have a DocBook as a source is nice, it's xml and such and very rich.
But this richness also makes that it is a lot of work to create decent
output. If I look at the DSSSL stylesheet it is clear to me that it
isn't very trivial to write something that converts a DocBook file into
something else. Will this project get incorporated in the DSSSL
stylesheet somehow?

Another option would be to have the same output format as the input.
Then a DocBook gets first to be processed by citeproc and then by DSSSL.
Same for WordML files: it gets feed to citeproc as XML, citeproc writes
out a new file which is in turn "written" to the screen/printer by Word.

Right now citeproc creates its own html, rtf etc., but since it likely
never be able to fully render WordML or DocBook wouldn't it be better to
output a file in the same format, but with the citations all resolved
and having the right form in the WordML or DocBook lingo?

Since this project is using DocBook NG I suppose that the original
DocBook doesn't have what it takes for what is wanted? Isn't it a bit
dangerous to rely on something that might or might not get into version 5?

Have any of you btw worked with the XMLmind DocBook Editor? It works
really nice. Unfortunately is doesn't swallow the biblioref tag... :-/
Or have you been able to get it to do so?

Bye,

Johan



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Which way?

Bruce D'Arcus
On Dec 23, 2004, at 11:35 AM, Johan Kool wrote:

> Right now citeproc creates its own html, rtf etc., but since it likely
> never be able to fully render WordML or DocBook wouldn't it be better
> to output a file in the same format, but with the citations all
> resolved and having the right form in the WordML or DocBook lingo?

See the files in the xsl/document directory.  They model how citeproc
would be incorporated.  So, I have every intention that one be able to
add them to standard DocBook/TEI/etc. stylesheets.  Norm Walsh and
company are planning to refactor their stylesheets for XSLT 2.0 anyway.

Forget about DSSSL ;-)

> Since this project is using DocBook NG I suppose that the original
> DocBook doesn't have what it takes for what is wanted? Isn't it a bit
> dangerous to rely on something that might or might not get into
> version 5?

No.  I'm confident v5 will look almost exactly like NG.  I talk to Norm
Walsh a fair bit.

Biblioref support is included in v4.4, BTW.  I just don't want to deal
with legacy stuff right now, and it's easier to handle documents that
are namespaced (pre-NG are not).

Also, I find it easier to write my own stylesheets than to customize
big stylesheet projects like DocBook.

> Have any of you btw worked with the XMLmind DocBook Editor? It works
> really nice. Unfortunately is doesn't swallow the biblioref tag... :-/
> Or have you been able to get it to do so?

No, I use emacs nxml mode for writing, and oXygen for XSLT stuff.

Bruce



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Which way?

Bruce D'Arcus
In reply to this post by Johan Kool
On Dec 23, 2004, at 11:35 AM, Johan Kool wrote:

> Right now citeproc creates its own html, rtf etc., but since it likely
> never be able to fully render WordML or DocBook wouldn't it be better
> to output a file in the same format, but with the citations all
> resolved and having the right form in the WordML or DocBook lingo?

Oh, on this: XSLT has a mechanism to override default stylesheets.  So,
that's basically what template like this would do:

<xsl:template match="db:citation">
   <xsl:call-template name="bib:format-citation">
     <xsl:with-param name="output-format" select="latex"/>
   </xsl:call-template>
</xsl:template>

In that case, it would replace the default citation rendering code with
CiteProc.

IMHO, it's pretty elegant.

Bruce