Subject:
Re: [discuss] a year work and work in progress
From:
Dafydd Crosby ####@####.####
Date:
19 May 2009 23:22:26 +0100
Message-Id: <4A119875.5070604@userful.com>
jdd for http://tldp.org wrote:
> What was done and is working is the setup of the wiki, the refreshing
> of the mirror list, the scan of the existing HOWTOs looking for the
> licence (not to speak of a new hardware for the servers, fairly
> administrated by Ser, and good relations with ibiblio folks).
>
I was wondering if we might be able to automate the checking of the
mirror date. Low on the list of priorities, I know, but it'll save time
and effort.
> What is in the way but not working as expected is the translation from
> HOWTOs to wiki and more challenging from wiki to docbook.
>
> Porting a HOWTO to the wiki still need some manual work. The script
> don't work completely well, and still work only from html. This page
> http://wiki.tldp.org/Converting-a-HOWTO gives most of the info.
>
> This problem, however, is not very important because this have to be
> done only once (for a given HOWTO) and so is manageable. main problem
> are URL and table management. the script (htmltodocbook) is available
> and any help is welcome.A year ago it was said that we could convert
> all the HOWTO at once, it could be now a good idea to do so is anybody
> knows how :-) .
>
> The other side conversion, from the wiki to docbook is much more
> important because it have to be done each time a HOWTO is updated and
> sometime it's often. So the manual steps I have to do are too many.
>
> http://wiki.tldp.org/Exporting_to_docbook summaries the problems. On
> my opinion, there is nothing really difficult, but the news are bad:
> the script author do *not* anymore maintain it and a new MoinMoin wiki
> is to be released that will unvalidate the present script.
>
> I my personal opinion, a console script able to convert the raw Moin
> page to docbook should be better than the present online system if
> possible. The script should be simpler and could be run
> non-interactively in the ldp system. Now it's python. Python
> programmer needed.
Already in progress at https://launchpad.net/docbook-toolkit - I'm
hoping to have some code public in the next week (fingers crossed).
> BUT may be all this is of little importance. Do we still need this
> conversion at all? Do we still nead docbook at all?
>
> Of course the docbook toolchain will be kept as long as there are
> docbook subscriptions, but do we need to keep docbook source for all
> the HOWTOs?
>
That's a big yes. DocBook is better at structuring content than a wiki,
and that's the simple truth. The issue with working in DocBook is that
there is a learning curve. I'm trying to sort that out at the moment
with DocBook Toolkit.
Also, one thing I'd like to get off of my chest is that wikis simply do
not look professional, and do not have the same feel as a standalone
document (like a PDF or text file). The LDP wiki is a bit of an eyesore,
and unless there's real vigilance in retaining some form of structure
you get entropy.
> Right now and from the beginning, the LDP offers HOWTOs in several
> formats:
>
> * html (one page and several pages)
> * pdf
> * plain text
> * plucker db
> * source
>
> I don't even know what is Plucker db. Is this still usefull? How can I
> test if this version works?
>
Plucker is for portable devices (like Palm Pilots), so it's definitely
still in use.
> plain text and html are easily done from the wiki and firefox can do
> pdf (as we can)
>
Just because Firefox can do something doesn't mean every browser can.
Unless you can click a sidebar option that says "Export Page to PDF",
it's not the same as having a PDF handy.
> Tere is a project, quite in good shape, to insert in the Static
> (mirrorred) LDP site a static version of the wiki.
>
> Could it be possible to simply link the relevant HOWTOs to this static
> site and drop nthe docbook conversion (unless the conversion is one
> time and asked by the maintainer)?
>
>
As much as you probably don't want to hear it, the DocBook format isn't
going to go away gently. Unless Moin was revamped so that it could do
everything that a DocBook can, abandoning it would be a bad idea.
> What is not as well done as I wouldlike is the LDP advertisement. We
> lack too much authors and volunteers. We have may be one wiki
> subscription a week :-(
>
>
I've actually started a recruitment drive with my local Linux Users
Group in Calgary. There are quite a few people who are willing to submit
content, but the one thing that I got out of it was that the bar is too
high for submitting content. They don't want to work in DocBook, and an
idea they had was that they could build the documents in OpenOffice,
which has DocBook import/export capabilities. If we encouraged OOo use,
we'd get the benefit of proper markup and a professional look, but the
ease of /just writing the content./
> We have a volunteer to revamp the LDP Home page, what should be a good
> idea...
>
>
Yep, I'm working on it now. At the moment, I'm simply pulling the style
elements from the static pages and putting it into CSS. This way, to
improve the look of the whole site will be MUCH simpler.
I'm going to put the static content into a source control repository as
well, so that way it's easier to roll back pages and keep things in order.
> We have also yet to port to the wiki a lot of the old site that should
> be better there, but these pages are difficult to copy...
>
>
There are definitely some pages that should be moved to the wiki. Once I
get some spare time, I'll probably move some stuff.
Everyone should be firing up their IRC client and get #tldp back up and
vital.
Oh, an idea that was brought up in CLUG that I liked: copy-editors.
Essentially, have a person (or a group) responsible for basic
copy-editing and for knowing how to work the DocBook toolchain. It will
free the content authors to make content and not worry about DocBook
conversions, etc.
-Dafydd
