Subject:
Re: Wikipedia articles on the LDP
From:
David Merrill ####@####.####
Date:
27 Jan 2002 18:12:49 -0000
Message-Id: <20020127190400.GD11127@lupercalia.net>
On Sun, Jan 27, 2002 at 12:43:53PM -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:
> David Merrill wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 10:10:34PM -0500, David Merrill wrote:
> > > I want to start mirroring some relevant Wikipedia articles on the LDP.
> > > ...
> >
> > It's been three days, and no response. I don't know how to interpret
> > that. Does nobody care, or does silence mean agreement?
>
> I've been silent because
>
> it all sounds pretty good
> nothing I'd object to at all
> various good ideas
> and I'm reluctant to start babbling suggestions and questions
> when I don't have time to put any work into it
Heh.
> > The organic nature of the LDP as an organization means I try always to
> > get consensus from the major contributors before I do anything major
> > that would affect the site. So I really want to hear from you. Please.
>
> I'd say take your first cut, put it up and let people comment once they
> can see it. My guess is you'll then get many suggestions and quite a
> few contributions, and it will change a lot later on.
That's a great idea. I will put it up on my own mirror of the LDP, so
everyone can see it in action, then we can talk about it in concrete
terms.
> > Here's the gameplan I'm pursuing. ...
>
> Sounds good to me.
>
> > Once I get that utility into a fairly workable condition, I'm going to
> > use it to convert the Jargon File sources (which are texinfo) into
> > docbook as well, and mirror *them* on the LDP, and provide a namespace
> > to link to them.
> >
> > This is all to accomplish two larger, strategic goals. One, getting
> > more depth and breadth to our content, but building on the works of
> > others, and two, getting much more massively interlinked.
>
> What about RFCs? Certainly we refer to them quite often.
>
> They are all copyrighted (I think by the Internet Society) and there
> would be an issue to be worked out there, but they are already freely
> downloadable and widely mirrored, so it might not be too dofficult an
> issue.
>
> Several RFCs are glossaries -- networking terms, security, ... --
> which if converted to DocBook might give us a very good start on
> a common glossary for LDP documents.
>
> There is some work being done on using XML to write RFCs:
> http://www.oasis-open.org/cover/xml-rfc.html
>
> A couple of projects I think might be quite useful, if someone has
> time for them, would be:
>
> text RFC to RFC-DTD XML converter, so we could have all RFCs
> in a common, modern, format
> RFC-DTD to DocBook
>
> Could your Wiki work be extended in that direction?
Sure. I could add an [[rfc:9999]] namespace, which would link to the
RFC. I'll add that to my TODO list. :-)
I don't know if mirroring the RFCs is that good of an idea, though.
They are normative documents, unlike the other things. Not that I'm
sure it's a *bad* idea, either. I'm gonna have to ponder for a bit,
though.
--
David C. Merrill http://www.lupercalia.net
Linux Documentation Project ####@####.####
Collection Editor & Coordinator http://www.linuxdoc.org
If one company dominates everything, it's dangerous. You kill innovation and
you lose the capacity to create alternatives. Ultimately, that isn't good
for the consumer or the country.
--Samuel Miller, U.S. Justice Department
