Matthew Burgess matthew at
Fri Dec 10 10:03:36 PST 2004

Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> James Robertson wrote:
>> All,
>> I have gone through the SRS as best I can on my own.  You can see the 
>> BZ entries for nALFS2 at 
>> and the SRS at 
>> I need you all to look through it and make comments.  I especially 
>> need help with the following sections: 
> James,
> I looked through those pages extensively, and you've done a great job so 
> far, many thanks. I intended to sit down and begin filling out some of 
> those items you mentioned as well, but there were a few blocker points, 
> it seems; a few things that haven't been completely decided yet and that 
> will affect what we list in your SRS.
> 1) The testing we've done on parsing the book as a profile shows that 
> it's both possible and practical, therefore I'd like to see this become 
> a standard feature. However, I don't think we're quite ready to ask the 
> current LFS editors to add our tags to the book, I'd like to have 
> something a little more solid first.  To that end, I propose that, for 
> now, we maintain diffs of the book that will allow us to parse it.
> 2) In using the LFS book as a profile, what sorts of standards or means 
> will we employ to add to or customize the build?  How will we do this?  
> By calling up an external editor in which we can insert our own 
> commands?  Parsing another external file?  Suggestions?
> 3) We need to finalize a development language. AFAIK, at this time we 
> are heavily leaning on C, but there has been nothing stated officially 
> that we will be using that to build our tool.  Looking at our wiki docs, 
> is there a better choice?
> 4) A comm protocol needs to be decided, or at least addressed, so that 
> we can work that into the Back-End design from the start.
> 5) To what extent does RelaxNG play a part? Esp now that we hope to be 
> parsing the LFS Book straight out, how will RelaxNG fit fully into this 
> picture?  I'd like to see something more concrete written out concerning 
> this.

This obviously isn't anything concrete - consider it your 'starters for 
10' :)

What I envisioned happening was that the LFS Book would contain a mix of 
DocBook and nALFS tags.  The LFS stylesheets would add a customisation 
layer that would render the information provided in the nALFS tags into 
appropriate human-readable output.  The nALFS tool would then simply 
parse the book, picking out all the nALFS tags, throwing away the 
DocBook ones, and doing what it needs to do.

How Relax NG fits in to it is that in order to mix and match tags from 
different XML structures, one needs to use an XML Schema definition 
rather than the SGML-based DTDs we currently use.  There are a number of 
such Schema varieties out there, the W3Cs XML Schema Definition (XSD) 
being one of them.  So why choose RelaxNG?  The DocBook committee has 
already outlined its plans for providing the DocBook-5.0 schema in Relax 
NG format.

Hope this helps at least a little, let me know where it needs 
'concreting' and where such text needs to be made available.



More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list