Re: [Cp-tools-discuss] DebugDoclet >> XmlDoclet

[Nic Ferrier]

Julian Scheid <address@hidden> writes:

> Nic wrote: 
> > Can you please make sure that whatever you do is completly GNU? We 
> > don't want to replace a Sun dependancy with a dependancy on something 
> > else. 
>  
> Good point. I'm currently using Apaches' Xalan for XSLT processing, 
> that's not completely GNU but its preferrable to Sun software isn't 
> it? 

It's not at all GNU and no, it isn't really acceptable because of the
licence issues.

  
> On one hand we should keep our work free of dependencies on non-free 
> software. On the other, sticking to 'old' stuff instead of using 
> current technology may be a bad decision as well. 
>  
> In every case, I assume there are GPLed XSLT processors (or there will 
> be in near future) so I don't think this is really a problem. 

Please don't assume that. Unless someone writes one we won't have one
and we will be in the embarrassing position of relying on Apache
code.

The nearest we get to having an XSLT processor is the Saxon tool and
that is MPLed (which does link to the GPL).

My personal view is that, if you need an XSLT engine, you should use
Saxon.



> My XSLT code currently relies on Xalan because it needs some 
> special functionality for writing output to several files but this 
> dependency is very local and can be replaced easily. 

Please don't do this. It's completly against the principles of the
GNU project.


> > - don't bother with frames. 
> > - keep to HTML 2.0 
>  
> I see your point, but I think when we have a fully-featured 
> doclet that uses frames and HTML4+CSS+whatever, it's not a 
> big deal to downgrade this. To be exact, I _know_ that it's 
> no problem to downgrade the XSLT sheet so that it delivers 
> to any minimal browser. 

Ok. I can see the point of writing something that produces very
flexible HTML.

But bear in mind that the important point is to fit in with the GNU
project as a whole, there is real value in that.


Nic