Re: [Scrollkeeper-devel] Relations with OMF

[Eric B. <e.b...@no...>]

Le Friday 27 April 2001 09:49, Dan Mueth a =E9crit :
>
> I think Greg Leblanc is, in name, the active maintainer of the DTD now.=
  I
> think he has some work to do ;)  I think he's quietly lurking on both o=
f
> these mailing lists.  (Greg - are you here?)
>
> We definitely need to work with the OMF group more, not only on the DTD=
,
> but possibly on the OMF specification itself.  I need to look over your
> emails in the last couple days more carefully to understand exactly wha=
t
> belongs in the OMF and what we consider as ScrollKeeper-specific
> extensions.
>
> BTW: I raised a handful of issues which seemed at the time to be
> inconsistancies and/or ambiguities in the spec and DTD on ldp-meta some
> time ago.  I think those issues are still unresolved, and may be a good
> place to begin.

Speaking about this, one of the concerns at KDE was "how do we extract OM=
F=20
data out of our docbook files?". We did not wish to store the OMF=20
meta-information in a separate file. So the idea so far is:
- to automatically extract DocBook meta-information which has OMF equival=
ent
- to store OMF meta-information which has no DocBook equivalent (like the=
=20
position in the categories tree) in the DocBook file, using XML namespace=
 to=20
differentiate it from plain DocBook, then to extract this information as =
well.

> I would recommend starting a thread on ldp-meta for each of the OMF
> elements to review whether the spec is complete, unambiguous, and that =
the
> DTD is consistant with the spec.
>
> Bob - Any help you can offer to help move things along would be
> appreciated :)
>
> Dan

--=20
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| =C9ric Bischoff                              mailto:e.b...@no... =
|
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+