discuss: LinuxDoc vs. DocBook, was Re: part of the review?
Subject:
Re: LinuxDoc vs. DocBook, was Re: part of the review?
From:
David Lloyd ####@####.####
Date:
18 Jul 2001 16:35:41 -0000
Message-Id: <3B55BBA6.1538FDB8@rebel.net.au>
This is a religious war.
David Lawyer argues for LinuxDoc. Only.
I'm bored with this stupid argument based on opinion and people posting
snippets of documents containing snippets of LinuxDoc and DocBook where
the, to paraphrase, the lack of pargraph tags makes them easier to read.
Why don't we just assume that David Lawyer happens to be a lawyer for
LinuxDoc? He's representing his client well. Very well in the legal
sense. In law you don't need to prove the truth. You only have to prove
beyond reasonable doubt, and if you can do that by selective quoting,
obfuscation or plain stubborness that's fine. You've won your case.
It doesn't matter that a guilty client might have gone free.
To be perfectly blunt, I've decided to totally disregard David Lawyer's
remarks on the LinuxDoc vs DocBook debate from the moment he said "Now
that we've hopefully established...".
Note: This doesn't mean I'm ignoring all of what David Lawyer says. It
means I refuse to enter into a debate about DocBook vs LinuxDoc. I think
he's wrong, I don't need to reiterate what everyone else has said to
support my case, and this is, as far as I'm concerned akin to a
religious war.
DSL
[
Now, can we actually get along to writing documentation, instead of
having to have arguments about what format to write it in
]
