Subject:
Re: [discuss] Re: a year work and work in progress
From:
Rick Moen ####@####.####
Date:
19 May 2009 21:14:10 +0100
Message-Id: <20090519200932.GR16483@linuxmafia.com>
Quoting Jean-Daniel Dodin ####@####.####
> I think going to docook was an error. I never had problems with
> linuxdoc, but docbook is awfull on a simple text editor and, at that
> time, no friendly xml editor was available. Now simply use Kate :-).
I've always pretty much felt that way, too, and have generally been in
agreement with David Lawyer on his strong preference for LinuxDoc,
but didn't want to be too hasty in airing my opinon. But since you're
saying it, yeah. ;->
My guess is that the move to DocBook XML was driven by a desire to adopt
genuine, serious, standardised publication-industry markup suitable for
full-scale books.
> But IMHO, the main problem with xml and sgml as well was the backends.
Yeah, probably just using the Moin markup as the upstream master format
is good enough.
> Even today, I can't run the ldp tool chain on my own
> computer, only on my ibiblio account, an not anybody can do that :-).
Really? I never had a problem making the DocBook tools run on any of my
Debian or *buntu boxes. ('Course, LinuxDoc was always even simpler. ;->)
> Well... obviously the old system was not appealing :-). With the wiki,
> we try to make new people to come, keeping the old working system for
> anybody wanting it.
I know that's the theory. Worth a try.
> > I'm not surprised that the export script (that you described) is poorly
> > maintained: The whole notion of Docbook as an _export_ format is a bit
> > perverse.
>
> Why? I don'think docbook was ever seen to be edited in vi. Given this,
> MoinMoin is not a good xml editor :-(.
Editor-friendliness is always desirable for its own sake, but isn't what's
truly relevant in picking a master, primary document format.
Getting back to the reasons LDP migrated to DocBook, LDP wanted a master
format in which all markup was well-defined and parser-friendly, with a
rich markup language capable of doing anything LDP might wish to do,
even in book-length works. LinuxDoc, the old standard, was very good in
that department, but lacks the full range of markup choices available in
DocBook XML, and is completely unknown in the publishing industry,
LinuxDoc having been created by Matt Welsh solely to meet LDP's needs
without DocBook's verbosity and bloat.
The reason I said _exporting_ to DocBook is a bit perverse is that
you lose all of its advantages of expressiveness and precision when you
don't compose in it.
Moin markup is pretty limited in its capabilities, but probably
good enough.
[Plucker:]
> Popular? I have a windows mobile device and never heard about plucker
> (out of LDP) - not a good reading device anyway. I will do a closer look.
All of the typical sources of information (magazines, Web sites) about
software for PDAs is heavily biased in favour of proprietary software,
which, after all, is in many cases produced by companies with
advertising budgets and marketing directors.
So, naturally, most PDA users will have never even heard of Plucker,
which is an extremely good piece of software for PalmOS (I have no idea
how good it is for Windows Mobile), because it's open source.
So, I guess I meant "popular among PDA users alert enough to keep their
eyes open for good open-source alternatives to the heavily-promoted
proprietary offerings".
FYI: This won't help _you_, because you use Windows Mobile, but, some
years ago, I became so annoyed by the pervasive bias in coverage of
software for PalmOS that I decided to do something about it: I started
building a comprehensive directory of all available open source
codebases for PalmOS, all development tools, etc. I've never gotten
around to building a real HTML front-end for the data, but you can see
the raw information in the 00index.txt files of the main directory and
four subdirectories: http://linuxmafia.com/palmos/
> It was originally stated that docbook made necessary a structured
> document. I was surprised to see nearly any wiki page can be converted
> to docbook, even with bad layout.
Yes, but the point is that what you get is pretty _bad_ DocBook (sort
of like what you get from using Babelfish to translate _A Tale of Two
Cities_ into French). Which undermines the point of DocBook.
The only way to reliably get _good_ DocBook markup is to compose
natively in that markup language. I'm not suggesting doing so. I'm
just saying that _exporting_ to it is a bit perverse.
> Problem with the wiki is than it's an online system, not good for
> lowbandwith.
A point. However, somone on dialup can always pull down a copy
locally, edit locally, then paste back into the wiki edit buffer.
--
Cheers, Notice: The value of your Hofstadter's Constant
Rick Moen (the average amount of time you spend each month
####@####.#### thinking about Hofstadter's Constant) has just
McQ! (4x80) been adjusted upwards.
