why XInclude for release-notes

[Paul W. Frields]

On Sun, 2006-02-12 at 07:45 -0800, Karsten Wade wrote:
> <stickster> I am still curious... why did we move to XInclude to start
> with?
> 
> Here's my small stack of reasons:
[...snip...]

Thanks, good for future reference too.

> Also, I'm wondering if this header is properly formed:
> 
> <!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//OASIS//DTD DocBook V4.4//EN"
> "http://www.docbook.org/xml/4.4/docbookx.dtd">
> 
> Shouldn't there be an 'XML' between 'DocBook' and 'V4.4'?

Just so.  I went ahead and committed this just now since I didn't see
any such changes upon updating.

> I'm going to check all these changes in for now, so that we can work
> together to hack through.  My error output seems related to the $PWD of
> the XIncluded file.  I'm working my way through until I probably end up
> with just having all the legal notice stuff within the language-specific
> areas of the module as a hack-around.

I had a thought about this... Why not include the actual <para> elements
in extended entities, and then XInclude either a <section> or
<legalnotice> element that wraps the extended entity?  That way we can
put a standard DocBook XML prolog in all docs and go with XInclude in
the generated fdp-info-*.xml document.  I haven't tried this but I'll
meet you on IRC today to discuss.

-- 
Paul W. Frields, RHCE                          http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
 Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/attachments/20060212/91e38788/attachment.sig>