Re: Re: [docbook-apps] proposed additions to DocBook for programming languages

Hi Stefan,

The two tag sets serve a similar purpose, but are very different in their
implementation: the Boost-based set looks like an equivalent to refentry &
co. (the base item is an API/library), while the one I proposed on GitHub
is rather based on the synopses (the base item is either a class, an
enumeration, a macro, or a namespace — the closest item to Boost root).
Also, the Boost extension adds many many tags (77) ithout being similar to
what already exists in DocBook, while mine tries to use fewer tags (18, 15
with a generic synopsisinfo) and to mimic the existing semantics.
The final difference I see is that the Boost extension is really revolving
around C++ (with concepts like headers, which are not present in that many
languages), while I tried to be as language-agnostic as possible while
being able to model as many things as possible.
Just to highlight a few differences between both :). Actually, I had a look
at BoostBook before choosing to design something else.

Thibaut Cuvelier


On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 at 19:23, stefan <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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 [email protected]
>
>
> [image: Stefan]
>
> --
>
>       ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
>
>
>