Hi Knut,
Please note my recommendation both in the documentation guide as well
as on this mailing list NOT to use XML Mind. There were a number of
problems that I encountered when trying to collaborate with the Viet
Nam team with this program. XML Mind seems to insert a number of
elements silently as well as "pretty printing" the XML behind the
scenes , inserting a lot of line breaks, which are really uncessary
for DocBook. Some DocBook renderers will respect these line breaks,
which makes document production more tricky.
I agree that it is easy to use. I prefer it when compared to Serna as
it is certainly more intuitive. However given the issues that I
experienced when working on the Excel report document from Viet Nam, I
felt that it was not an appropriate tool to use when multiple people
may be collaborating on a document with different DocBook editors.
Best regards,
Jason
···
On 11/18/09, Knut Staring <knutst@gmail.com> wrote:
Agree with being practical - which probably means old-fashioned in this
case, unless there are very compelling features in version 5. Just wanted to
note that I personally have found XML Mind more suitable and faster than
Serna Free, and it is good in that it readily displays the path to resources
like images.Knut
2009/11/18 Jason Pickering <jason.p.pickering@gmail.com>
I do not have a strong opinion about which version to use, mostly out
of ignorance, but somewhat based on practicality. We are using a very
small subset (at the moment) of the total number of DocBook tags, so I
am not 100% about whether we need to be on the bleeding edge. My
recommendation of using version 4.x is based on what is available with
the WYSIWYG editor, Serna Free, which support version 4.2 out of the
box. There could be compelling reasons to use a later version of the
schema, but they are not apparent to me. Based on our immediate
requirements to have a somewhat more streamlined set of documents, the
editors that are practical for both geeks and those less inclined to
use VI for editing DocBook, it would make sense to stick with
something that is perhaps not bleeding edge, but practical. I think
the changes Jo has made to the pom are great and significantly ease
the building on the documentation on my side (working over an
incredibly bad link).Unless there are other reasons, I think we should tread softly, and
stick with what works for now.On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Lars Helge Øverland >> <larshelge@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Jo Størset <storset@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Den 18. nov. 2009 kl. 15.08 skrev Lars Helge Øverland:
>>
>> 5.0 is available:
>>
>> http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.docbook/docbook-xml
>>
>> Notice the size of the binary.. 0 bytes
>
>
> Doh..
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs
> Post to : dhis2-devs@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs
> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs
Post to : dhis2-devs@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp--
Cheers,
Knut Staring