daniel.carrera at zmsl.com
Thu Dec 14 06:37:04 EST 2006
On Thu, 2006-14-12 at 10:17 +0100, Søren Roug wrote:
> No, we're not duplicating work, but its stated goal
> is more in line with what I'm going towards.
That page links to a proposal from Rob Weir for a developers kit:
It has a lot of good ideas, and it's along the lines of what we're
trying to do with ODF Tools. So far we've only done a tiny portion of
what a good Developers Toolkit should have, but you have to start
somewhere. A full toolkit is a lot of work. I think we've done alright
because we've gone for simple scripts to get started.
> I'm also a bit concerned that the odftools currently has a large
> amount of dependencies: Xsltproc, xmllint, perl, python. So perhaps
> it would be cleaner if I isolated my Python stuff on a new area on
> the Fellowship SVN and also imported the py-odftools files. Assuming
> the author's consent.
I think a better solution is:
1. Use make targets to separate programs that have certain dependencies.
2. Not worry about dependency on Perl and Python. Those are standard
with all Linux and Unix installations.
3. Try to avoid other dependencies if possible.
You can't avoid dependency on an XML parser or XSLT processor, but you
can try to use different XML parsers. For example, I modified the
docbook2odf script so that it can use either Perl's Sablotron module or
xsltproc. I think that's the best we can do.
Does Python come with an XSLT processor? I'm just wondering if maybe we
could/should ship odftools with its own XSLT processor.
"I AM in shape. Round IS a shape."
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.org/pipermail/odf-devel/attachments/20061214/dbb3ec7a/attachment-0001.pgp
More information about the odf-devel