norman.walsh.name: Comments on /2004/01/01/absinthehttp://norman.walsh.name/2004/01/01/absinthe/comments.atom2012-02-13T09:11:33.946801ZComment 1 on /2004/01/01/absinthehttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00012004-01-03T16:27:17Z2004-01-03T16:27:17ZMakoto Muratada39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

I read your introduction to DocBook NG with interest.

Re: Exclusions, Sort Of

How do you feel about this thread?

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/relax-ng/200310/msg00004.html

Comment 2 on /2004/01/01/absinthehttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00022004-01-03T19:23:23Z2004-01-03T19:23:23ZStefan Seefeldda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

I remember some discussion about modularizing docbook. Do you still think about factoring out domain-specific vocabularies (classsynopsis et al., say) into extensions / profiles ? If so, that would allow other (new) domains to be added for which support has been very limitted (I'm thinking of the ubiquitous 'role' attribute). Domains such as software engineering / development process ('requirement', 'use case', 'principle', etc.), modeling extensions (the aforementioned 'classsynopsis' et al.), etc. etc.

Comment 3 on /2004/01/01/absinthehttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00032004-01-05T11:20:11Z2004-01-05T11:20:11ZNorman Walshda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

Stefan asks about modularization. Yes, the plan is definitely to allow for modularization. The sources that build the RNG schema are already modularized (don't want glossaries; don't include that module), and the built schema can be customized by redefining patterns.

I'll put together an example or two eventually.

Comment 4 on /2004/01/01/absinthehttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00042004-01-05T16:48:42Z2004-01-05T16:48:42ZJirka Kosekda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

Hi Norm,

I hope that I will have time to look at the DocBook NG in much more detail later. But from first reading of your blog message I see one probmel -- xmltag element name doesn't conform to XML-Rec. See my previous message on that

http://sources.redhat.com/ml/docbook/2003-10/msg00058.html

Comment 5 on /2004/01/01/absinthehttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00052004-01-05T22:38:17Z2004-01-05T22:38:17ZNorman Walshda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

You're absolutely right. I'm going to just use "tag" for the moment, I think.