105711 - Bugzilla Guide converted XML

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Bugzilla :: Documentation, enhancement)

Description

[Gregory Leblanc]

I was mucking around this morning, and converted the current bugzilla guide to
XML, so that I could run some performance tests.  I'll attach a patch against
CVS that includes my changes.

As for the benchmarks...  It took 8 seconds to process the bugzilla guide into
multiple html files, and 3 seconds to make a single HTML file, using libxslt.  

Enjoy!

Comment 1

[Gregory Leblanc]

Attachment: Convert Bugzilla-guide to XML

Comment 2

[Matthew Tuck [:CodeMachine]]

Barnboy, can you give this a milestone, resolution or a comment please.

Comment 3

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

The docs should always be up-to-date when we release.  Forgot to exclude
Documentation when I mass-retargetted.

Comment 4

[Matthew Barnson]

SGML->XML source changes in.  nsgmls barfs on <imagedata> tag in database.sgml,
but openjade compiles it just fine.

I had to do several minor edits:
* removed all underscores from tags with id= attribute.  XML won't accept them.
* Removed URL field from doctype declaration
(http://docbook.org/xml/4.1.2/docbookx.dtd).  This is unsupported by openjade at
the moment, and if your SGML_CATALOG_FILES environment variable is set correctly
it will be able to read the correct dtd from the included catalogs.  Same
process as for SGML edits, I didn't want to break it -- let me know if this
breaks xslt for you, however.

Resolving fixed.  Check out the new code, see if it compiles using xslt please
(I don't have time right now to learn xslt, but I do want to in the future)

Comment 5

[Gregory Leblanc]

If you removed the URL from the DOCTYPE declaration completely, then it's not
really "valid" XML.  XML requires both a public and a system ID.  As it turns
out, OpenJade does support URLs, but it's a compile time option that people seem
to have turned off.  I wouldn't worry too much about it, it's just something to
be aware of for when you're ready to ditch OpenJade.

Comment 6

[Matthew Barnson]

Greg,
  What do you suggest?  Can you just put "" instead of the URL field?  I'm
rather set against using URL fields in the first place simply because of the
stunts Netscape has pulled yanking them in the past.