Re: proposed additions to DocBook for programming languages

Hi Bob,

I haven't used DocBook for quite a while, and unfortunately have been 
too busy recently to keep track or even contribute. However, there are a 
number of unfinished tasks that relate to this topic:

On 2019-04-29 12:41 p.m., Bob Stayton wrote:
>
> The DocBook Technical Committee has received a detailed proposal to 
> enhance the DocBook schema to better document the details of 
> programming languages.  The Committee would like to request that those 
> in the DocBook community who use DocBook to document programming 
> syntax to look over the proposal and provide us with feedback.   I'm 
> sending this to both the 'docbook' and 'docbook-apps' mailing lists to 
> ensure coverage, so my apologies for duplicate messages.
>
> They are proposing a number of new elements.  Since DocBook already 
> has a large number of elements and since this markup is somewhat 
> specialized, we are considering making it an optional extension to the 
> schema, similar to the Publisher's extension.
>
Quite a while ago A DocBook extension was developed as part of the Boost 
project, adding support for C++ artefacts. While that work was based on 
DocBook 4, I eventually mentored a GSoC student to port this to DocBook 
5, for eventual integration with both the DocBook 5 spec as well as 
stylesheet support. And while the GSoC project was successfully 
completed, the branch was never merged into master, and thus has never 
been formally released.

I believe all the work is contained in the "API" branch of the XSLT 1.0 
repo: https://github.com/docbook/xslt10-stylesheets/tree/api. Notably, 
the extension RelaxNG specs are in 
https://github.com/docbook/xslt10-stylesheets/tree/api/docbook/relaxng/api/src, 
and the stylesheet (which merely translate into the "core DocBook" 
vocabulary) are in 
https://github.com/docbook/xslt10-stylesheets/tree/api/xsl/api.

It would be a shame if all of this work was wasted.



> You will note in the comment that the proposal will likely be modified 
> to use a generic synopsisinfo element instead of individually named 
> synopsis info elements as originally proposed.
>
> Here is a link to the proposal:
>
> https://github.com/docbook/docbook/issues/111
>
> Your review and comments will help the DocBook TC in their 
> deliberations about this proposal. Thank you for your time.
>
> -- 
> Bob Stayton
> Sagehill Enterprises
> [email protected]

Stefan

--

       ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...