Re: [Scrollkeeper-devel] Relations with OMF

[Norman W. <nd...@nw...>]

/ Eric Bischoff <e.b...@no...> was heard to say:
| Le Friday 27 April 2001 14:52, Norman Walsh a écrit :
| > | > Your suggestion of adding tags which have their own namespace inside of
| > | > a DocBook document is interesting.  If we did this, would the document
| > | > still be a valid DocBook document which can be parsed by any standard
| > | > DocBook tool?
| >
| > No.
| 
| Even when providing and declaring the OMF DTD from the document?

Well, it would depend how you did that. As long as you build a
complete set of declarations, it would parse just fine. You could do
that with the internal subset, but making a separate DTD that combines
OMF and DocBook is probably the way to go.

| > If we build a single DTD that combines DocBook and OMF, then documents
| > can be validated against that.
| 
| This of course would be great.

I think that's probably the course to pursue.

| But still, in the Duck book, it is said somewhere that some MathML tagged 
| data can be included in a DocBook file. It's basically the same problem, and 
| as far as I know, the MathML tags haven't been merged with the DocBook DTD. 
| What is the point I don't understand?

You can only validate a DocBook+MathML file when you do use a merged DTD.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

P.S. I've now subscribed to scrollkeeper-devel and ldp-meta.

-- 
Norman Walsh <nd...@nw...> | To the man who is afraid everything
http://nwalsh.com/            | rustles.--Sophocles