error when doing docbook convert

[Yarco]

I'm using xml format.

one error like:

openjade:E:/downloads/docbkx412/ent/iso-lat2.ent:130:19:E: "X017D" is
not a func
tion name
openjade:E:/downloads/docbkx412/ent/iso-lat2.ent:131:17:E: "X017C" is
not a func
tion name
openjade:E:/downloads/docbkx412/ent/iso-lat2.ent:132:17:E: "X017B" is
not a func
tion name

and other:
openjade:E:\downloads\docbook-dsssl-1.79\docbook-dsssl-1.79\html\ldp.dsl:361:18:
E: reference to undefined variable "$table-width$"

command:
E:\My Documents\www\docbook>openjade -t xml -d
E:\downloads\docbook-dsssl-1.79\d
ocbook-dsssl-1.79\html\ldp.dsl#html -c catalog test.xml

catalog content:
OVERRIDE YES

CATALOG
"E:/downloads/openjade-1_3_1-2-bin/openjade-1.3.1/dsssl/catalog"
CATALOG "E:/downloads/docbkx412/docbook.cat"
CATALOG "E:/downloads/docbook-dsssl-1.79/docbook-dsssl-1.79/catalog"

And i have another question about docbook sgml:
How to use other charset in sgml declearation?

I've searched a lot of Docbook error, but it seems little can be
solved. Do anyone deal with it?

[Peter Flynn]

Post by Yarco
I'm using xml format.

Then why are you posting to comp.text.sgml?
This newsgroup is for SGML questions.
For XML questions you need to post to comp.text.xml

///Peter

[Yarco]

Sorry, but i do docbook install of SGML and XML.
And i am confused by them. I don't want to do 2 posts, one in
comp.text.xml, and one in comp.text.sgml.
And i do have a SGML question in my post:

How to use other charset in sgml declearation?

[Peter Flynn]

Post by Yarco
Sorry, but i do docbook install of SGML and XML.
And i am confused by them. I don't want to do 2 posts, one in
comp.text.xml, and one in comp.text.sgml.
How to use other charset in sgml declearation?

If you really need to, get a copy of the Reference Concrete Syntax,
and a copy of an RCS Declaration (see Goldfarb's "SGML Handbook"),
and a copy of the SGML Declaration for XML (both ENR and WWW versions,
available at http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-sgml-xml-971215), and have a
look at them.

In the SGML Declaration for XML, you will see a block which says

DESCSET
0 9 UNUSED
9 2 9
11 2 UNUSED
13 1 13
14 18 UNUSED
32 95 32
127 1 UNUSED
128 32 UNUSED
160 55136 160
55296 2048 UNUSED -- surrogates --
57344 8190 57344
65534 2 UNUSED -- FFFE and FFFF --
65536 1048576 65536

This specifies the status of each "character" (given as a multibyte
decimal value representing the codepoint). You will need to modify
it to allow the specific values you need to be able to use.

Under NAMING you will find blocks of values for NAMESTRT and NAMECHAR
which you will need to modify to allow the values you need for Name
Start characters and for the Name Characters.

The BASESET declarations let you specify the Formal Public Identifier
for the character set you want to use, but AFAIK parsers only
recognise a limited set of these.

This is a very non-trivial activity, and I strongly recommend you use
XML instead if possible.

///Peter

[Jan Roland Eriksson]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 23:30:22 +0100, Peter Flynn

Post by Peter Flynn
If you really need to, get a copy of the Reference Concrete Syntax,
and a copy of an RCS Declaration (see Goldfarb's "SGML Handbook"),
and a copy of the SGML Declaration for XML (both ENR and WWW versions,
available at http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-sgml-xml-971215), and have a
look at them.

Fantastic :)

"This XML file does not appear to have any style information
associated with it. The document tree is shown below."

Very user friendly? Not! (and it's 7 years old on top of that)

[...]

Post by Peter Flynn
This is a very non-trivial activity, and I strongly recommend you use
XML instead if possible.

Yea; simple minds needs simple solutions; still, as proven by the
document link above, it does not hurt a new projectere to know basics
about roots before s/he moves on to a possible simplified solution.

[David Håsäther]

Post by Jan Roland Eriksson

Post by Peter Flynn
http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-sgml-xml-971215)

Fantastic :)
"This XML file does not appear to have any style information
associated with it. The document tree is shown below."
Very user friendly? Not! (and it's 7 years old on top of that)

Here you go: http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-sgml-xml-971215.html :-)

[Jan Roland Eriksson]

Post by David Håsäther

Post by Jan Roland Eriksson

Post by Peter Flynn
http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-sgml-xml-971215)

Fantastic :)
"This XML file does not appear to have any style information
associated with it. The document tree is shown below."

[...]

Post by David Håsäther
Here you go: http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-sgml-xml-971215.html :-)

Well, they are two different documents as judged from the page source.

Interestingly FireFox, Mozilla and DocZilla reacts identical on the
first URL with a small difference that DocZilla also shows the XML
prolog.

My (old 7.52) Opera and IE6 gets served the html version at the second
URL when fed with the first URL. Hmpf :)

[William F Hammond]

Post by Jan Roland Eriksson

Post by Peter Flynn
available at http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-sgml-xml-971215), and have a

. . .

Post by Jan Roland Eriksson
"This XML file does not appear to have any style information
associated with it. The document tree is shown below."

This looks like a serving problem at W3C. I received it as above using
firefox, but when I retrieved it with GNU wget, I received an HTML 4.0
formatting.

-- Bill

[Alan J. Flavell]

Post by William F Hammond

Post by Jan Roland Eriksson

Post by Peter Flynn
available at http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-sgml-xml-971215), and have a

. . .

Post by Jan Roland Eriksson
"This XML file does not appear to have any style information
associated with it. The document tree is shown below."

This looks like a serving problem at W3C.

Could the "problem" be that W3C is obeying the content-type
negotiation specification?

The version of Mozilla that I use is sending this:
text/xml,application/xml,application/xhtml+xml,text/html;q=0.9,text/plain;q=0.8,image/png,*/*;q=0.5

And the W3C is returning:

Content-Location: NOTE-sgml-xml-971215.xml
Vary: negotiate,accept,accept-charset
[...]
Content-Type: application/xml; qs=0.9

Interesting! Mozilla says it prefers application/xml, but accepts
text/html with q=0.9. W3C says it has text/html (at an implied
qs=1.0) but the client can have application/xml with a source quality
of qs=0.9 if it prefers. Seems this is a close-run thing.

Post by William F Hammond
I received it as above using firefox, but when I retrieved it with
GNU wget, I received an HTML 4.0 formatting.

Yes, as in this response:

Content-Location: NOTE-sgml-xml-971215.html
Vary: negotiate,accept,accept-charset
[...]
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1

Presumably you didn't send any Accept: header, and so it returned
the resource with the highest source quality (qs) value.

[William F Hammond]

Post by Alan J. Flavell

Post by William F Hammond

Post by Jan Roland Eriksson

Post by Peter Flynn
available at http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-sgml-xml-971215), and have a

. . .

Post by Jan Roland Eriksson
"This XML file does not appear to have any style information
associated with it. The document tree is shown below."

This looks like a serving problem at W3C.

Could the "problem" be that W3C is obeying the content-type
negotiation specification?
text/xml,application/xml,application/xhtml+xml,text/html;q=0.9,text/plain;q=0.8,image/png,*/*;q=0.5

Without looking closely, it does seem that content negotiation is
working. But is it sane?

Not that one wants to change this 'accept' configuration -- given the
history with Mozilla and xml -- but text/xml and application/xml are
insufficiently specific content-types. In the early days of Mozilla
they were what was available for serving CSS-styled XML to the
network.

IMO if an XML instance that is not XHTML is under the eye of a web
server, it should either have an xml-stylesheet PI or else be
mimetyped as text/plain (if it is) or application/octet-stream.

Here, absent a stylesheet, I would think the webmaster wants to make
sure the unsuffixed URI resolves to the HTML formatting.

I have absolutely no complaint about what Mozilla does with the
unstyled instance of W3C's "spec" doctype. What else could it do?

Alas, we digress from the discussion topic.

-- Bill

[Peter Flynn]

Post by Jan Roland Eriksson
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 23:30:22 +0100, Peter Flynn

Post by Peter Flynn
If you really need to, get a copy of the Reference Concrete Syntax,
and a copy of an RCS Declaration (see Goldfarb's "SGML Handbook"),
and a copy of the SGML Declaration for XML (both ENR and WWW versions,
available at http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-sgml-xml-971215), and have a
look at them.

Fantastic :)
"This XML file does not appear to have any style information
associated with it. The document tree is shown below."
Very user friendly? Not! (and it's 7 years old on top of that)

The age isn't important (it's still valid) but it looks like James put
it there as SGML in the days when browsers wouldn't recognise it and
would just offer to download and save the file. Or something.

Post by Jan Roland Eriksson

Post by Peter Flynn
This is a very non-trivial activity, and I strongly recommend you use
XML instead if possible.

Yea; simple minds needs simple solutions; still, as proven by the
document link above, it does not hurt a new projectere to know basics
about roots before s/he moves on to a possible simplified solution.

I'll make a working copy and link it from the FAQ.

///Peter