RFC: Syntax Book

James Robertson jwrober at linuxfromscratch.org
Sat Jan 31 10:08:49 PST 2004

Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> James Robertson wrote:
>> I don't think we should put implementation specific information into 
>> the syntax book.  It is supposed to be implementation agnostic.  We 
>> can put in the users guide and/or hackers guide any DTD implementation 
>> notes/issues about how nALFS handles things.
> Agreed, the syntax doc should be implementation-agnostic. For that 
> matter so should the DTD, although at the moment changes to the DTD are 
> being driven by nALFS development.

That is fine if nALFS drives changes to the DTD.  I think that is good 
and if other implementations "come active" in the future, they may drive 
changes to it as well.  We can put in the user's guide what elements 
from what version of the DTD that each version of the tools takes 
advantage of.  I was thinking of a table of some kind.  I will just need 
to figure how to do the table in DocBook XML :)


More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list