From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/18494 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Paul Tremblay Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: ConTeXt and DocBook - beginner's questions Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:32:40 -0500 Message-ID: <20050225213240.GL2185@localhost.localdomain> References: <20050225174304.24661@mail.comp.lancs.ac.uk> Reply-To: mailing list for ConTeXt users NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1109367251 29293 80.91.229.2 (25 Feb 2005 21:34:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:34:11 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Fri Feb 25 22:34:11 2005 Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl ([131.211.172.88] helo=ronja.ntg.nl) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1D4n4Y-0004Aa-Vh for gctc-ntg-context-518@m.gmane.org; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:32:31 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 355BC12821; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:36:37 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ronja.vet.uu.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 29644-03; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:36:37 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3324E1281F; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:32:09 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA4601281F for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:32:07 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ronja.vet.uu.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 29644-02 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:32:07 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from rdsmtp.iglou.com (rdsmtp.iglou.com [192.107.41.63]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0613E12783 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:32:07 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from [192.107.41.3] (helo=iglou1.iglou.com) by rdsmtp.iglou.com with esmtp (8.12.5/8.12.5) id 1D4n4A-00007n-5T for ntg-context@ntg.nl; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:32:06 -0500 Original-Received: from [64.253.97.143] (helo=localhost.localdomain) by iglou1.iglou.com with esmtp (8.12.5/8.12.5) id 1D4n4A-00055I-0j for ntg-context@ntg.nl; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:32:06 -0500 Original-Received: by localhost.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 501) id E079D1BBB1; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:32:40 -0500 (EST) Original-To: mailing list for ConTeXt users Mail-Followup-To: mailing list for ConTeXt users Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050225174304.24661@mail.comp.lancs.ac.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at ntg.nl X-BeenThere: ntg-context@ntg.nl X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: mailing list for ConTeXt users List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Errors-To: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at ntg.nl X-MailScanner-From: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl X-MailScanner-To: gctc-ntg-context-518@m.gmane.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:18494 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:18494 > > One of the key ideas to take away from ConTeXt's XML manual www.pragma-ade.com/show-man-15.htm> is that there are *many* different > paths to take when processing XML. But this makes me confused. You can have and . If I am understanding things correctly, each of these namespaces refers to a document that already pre-defines the mapping. I could also make up my own mapping, and use the namespace ? Although this allows each user to create his own XML vocabulary, I would argue that such an XML vocabulary already exists: FO. The FO XML language is well-thought out and thorough. I see no sense in developing completely differnt XML vocabularies as work arounds until fotex is mature enough to handle the FO vocabulary directly. Creating these workaround vocabularies adds another layer to processing and seems to add to the complexity of processing XML. It seems simpler to think in terms of raw (non XML) ConTeXt. That way, if you have a question about formatting, you will find the answer relatively easy on the mailing list. I hope I am understanding things correctly. I want to develop a sound XML => ConTeXt strategy, so don't want to overlook any of ConTeXt's native XML abiblities. >You can now take a 100% XML path with XSL-FO, now, but that misses >out on so much of ConTeXt's excellent capabilities. Yes, I completely agree. Paul -- ************************ *Paul Tremblay * *phthenry@iglou.com * ************************