Re: [PATCH 04/35] DocBook: fix emphasis at the DVB documentation

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@infradead.org>]

Em Tue, 2 Jun 2015 08:51:38 -0300
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@osg.samsung.com> escreveu:

> Em Tue, 02 Jun 2015 11:56:04 +0900
> Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> escreveu:
> 
> > On Thu, 28 May 2015 18:49:07 -0300
> > Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Currently, it is using 'role="tt"', but this is not defined at
> > > the DocBook 4.5 spec. The net result is that no emphasis happens.
> > > 
> > > So, replace them to bold emphasis.
> > 
> > Nit: I suspect the intent of the "emphasis" here was to get the code in a
> > monospace font, which "bold" is unlikely to do.  Isn't there a
> > role="code" or something useful like that to use?  I'd have to go look.
> 
> Good point! I think that emphasis only does italic (with is the default,
> and don't need role option) or bold on DocBook 4.5. 
> 
> We're using <constant> on the places where we want a monospace font.
> That's probably the right tag there.
> 
> For the record: this document was produced by merging two different
> documents: the V4L docbook (that used a legacy DocBook version - 3.x or
> 2.x) and the DVB LaTex documentation, which was converted by some
> tool to docbook 3.x (or 2.x) to match the same DocBook spec that
> V4L were using. The 'role="tt"' came from such conversion. This
> were maintained together with the legacy Mercurial tree that was 
> used to contain the media drivers.
> 
> When we moved to git, the DocBook got merged in the Kernel and
> another conversion was taken to allow compiling it using DocBook 4.x.
> We only checked the tags that didn't compile, but options with
> invalid arguments like 'role="tt"' where xmllint doesn't complain
> weren't touched.
> 
> One question: any plans to update the documentation to DocBook schema?

Gah, something got wrong on my edition on the above line...
I meant to say, instead:

	"One question: any plans to update the DocBook schema on the documentation?"


> 
> We're using either schema 4.1 or 4.2, with are both very old. The
> latest 4.x is 4.5, with was written back on 2006. So, except for historic
> reasons, are there any reason why keeping them at version 4.2? 
> I did a quick look at the DocBook specs (for 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5), 
> and they say that no backward compatible changes were done. So, using
> version 4.5 should be straightforward.
> 
> I applied this patch here:
> 
> --- a/Documentation/DocBook/media_api.tmpl
> +++ b/Documentation/DocBook/media_api.tmpl
> @@ -2,2 +2,2 @@
> -<!DOCTYPE book PUBLIC "-//OASIS//DTD DocBook XML V4.2//EN"
> -       "http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/xml/4.2/docbookx.dtd" [
> +<!DOCTYPE book PUBLIC "-//OASIS//DTD DocBook XML V4.5//EN"
> +       "http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/xml/4.5/docbookx.dtd" [
> 
> and compiled the media documentation with:
> 
> make cleanmediadocs
> make DOCBOOKS=media_api.xml htmldocs 2>&1 | grep -v "element.*: validity error : ID 
> .* already defined"
> xmllint --noent --postvalid "$PWD/Documentation/DocBook/media_api.xml" >/tmp/x.xml 2>/dev/null
> xmllint --noent --postvalid --noout /tmp/x.xml
> xmlto html-nochunks -m ./Documentation/DocBook/stylesheet.xsl -o Documentation/DocBook/media Documentation/DocBook/media_api.xml >/dev/null 2>&1
> 
> In order to try to produce errors. Everything seemed to work. On a quick
> look, the documentation looked fine, and no errors (except for some
> crappy element validity errors, with seems to be due to a bug on recent
> versions of the xml tools present on Fedora 22).

I did a diff between what's produced with v4.2 and v4.5 using:

make cleanmediadocs
make DOCBOOKS=media_api.xml htmldocs 2>&1 | grep -v "element.*: validity error : ID .* already defined"
xmlto html-nochunks -m ./Documentation/DocBook/stylesheet.xsl -o Documentation/DocBook/media Documentation/DocBook/media_api.xml >/dev/null 2>&1
cat Documentation/DocBook/media/media_api.html |sed s,'>','>\n',g >v4.2

Then applying the patch and doing the same.

Except for auto-generated naming references:

--- v4.2        2015-06-02 09:51:14.867426792 -0300
+++ v4.5        2015-06-02 09:51:21.030553531 -0300
@@ -24 +24 @@ Copyright <A9> 2009-2014 LinuxTV Developers
-<a name="idm140503220604352">
+<a name="idm140423402024512">
@@ -45 +45 @@ Table of Contents</b>
-<a href="#idm140503221376592">
+<a href="#idm140423402329888">

The document looks the same.

So, I'll likely send on my next docbook patch series a patch
changing the DTD to DocBook schema 4.5, with is the latest 4.x
spec.

Still, the question remains: are there any value on changing it to
5.0?

Regards,
Mauro