On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 20:41:03 +0900 (JST)
Hiroki Sato <hrs@NetBSD.org> wrote:

> "Mike M. Volokhov" <mishka@apk.od.ua> wrote
>   in <20041124130003.0d24da37.mishka@apk.od.ua>:
> 
> mishka> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:29:04 +0900 (JST)
> mishka> Hiroki Sato <hrs@NetBSD.org> wrote:
> mishka> >  No, this breaks outputs other than HTML.
> mishka> 
> mishka> That's may be easy fixed.
> 
>  I do not think so.  If we do not use <citerefentry>, standard utilities for
>  DocBook which are used to generate an index do not work, for example.
> 
>  Hmmm, I do not want to say that your idea is bad, but original vocabulary
>  is harmful in many cases.  I think <pkg>, <ports>, and <gnutspr> are
>  no exception.  They can be <filename role="pkg">, <ulink role="ports">,
>  and <ulink role="gnutspr"> respectively and the latter are more reasonable
>  from the XML's perspective...
> 
>  Does anyone have any objections about replacing our original tags with
>  the equivalent ones in the DocBook standard?  If there is no specific
>  reason to stick to them, I would like to replace and clean up them.
>  The tag will be slightly longer than the current one, but I believe
>  the current way has few advantages and many disadvantages.

Completely agree.

Till NetBSD schemas are not heavy customized, there are no *real*
advantages in this way. However, to gain simplicity for developers the
NetBSD documentation may contain some own tags and processed in two
passes: first pass to expand all NetBSD-tags into DocBook equivalents,
and second pass will apply original XSL stylesheets.

--
Mishka.