[xmlroff] Implement DocBook extension functions for xsltproc?

[Tony Graham]

On Thu, Aug 02 2007 17:08:11 +0100, seefeld at sympatico.ca wrote:
> Tony Graham wrote:
>>>From http://xmlroff.org/ticket/83:
>> 
>> http://www.sagehill.net/docbookxsl/InstallingAProcessor.html describes
>> some DocBook extension functions that are presently only implemented for
>> Saxon and Xalan.
>> 
>> Is it necessary to implement them for xsltproc so xmlroff can use them?
>
> I'm not sure I understand the question. xsltproc, as well as saxon and xalan,
> produce fo, to be fed into xmlroff. Correct ?

You can instead specify an XML file and a stylesheet and xmlroff will
run libxslt functions to do the transform.

> So, in this line of thought, xmlroff shouldn't really care. Of course, if
> xmlroff is itself calling xsltproc internally (to provide a convenient
> wrapper that transforms directly from docbook xml to pdf), things look different.

Essentially, it is running xsltproc internally.

> That being said, I think there are a number of extensions that I would love
> to be able to use, but can't because I'm not using saxon or xalan, such as
> programlistings with line numbering (and some associated callout features).

That's the sort of extensions that I'm talking about.

The absence of the extensions may explain some of the results of running
the DocBook testdocs.  (Did I mention that I got DocBook testing working
again?)

> So, +1 from me for such an RFE.

This would come under the "aims to excel at DocBook formatting" part of
the xmlroff self-description, since it would make xmlroff easier to use
with DocBook if you didn't have to run other software to get the best
input for formatting.

Another little something to occupy my time in my Montreal hotel room, I
guess.

The next question then becomes whether or not xmlroff should support
setting XSLT parameters on the command line.

Regards,


Tony.