discuss: LDP Style discussion (cont.)
Subject:
Re: LDP Style discussion (cont.)
From:
Togan Muftuoglu ####@####.####
Date:
14 Apr 2002 14:49:26 -0000
Message-Id: <20020414174759.A32199@dinamizm.com>
* Alexander Bartolich; ####@####.#### on 14 Apr, 2002 wrote:
>1. Make your sentences short.
agreed.
>2 Copy from document templates.
agreed
>
>3. Use DocBook. XML is preferred, but SGML will do.
100 % supported. Given the fact that Docbook XML/SGML 4.1.2 has some tags
which are not backwards compatible with Docbook 3 and given the fact
that Docbook 5.0 will be XML, I believe LDP should focus on the future,
not to the things that have been done in the past. Linux-doc could have
suited earlier , yet to be adaptive to the new era Linux Documentation
project should follow the trends in documentation.
>And then provide a series of good templates. With detailed
>explanation of the background. At the moment I see the
>"LDP Author Guide" and the "HOWTO-template for Big HOWTOs".
>And no explanation of the differences between the two.
>
>If everybody used DocBook a DSSSL or a XSLT script could
>insert boiler plate texts during rendering. But then
>I already said that LDP is really weak on that.
This is based on couple things IMO, as which version of the DSSSL or XSL
style sheets are considered stable to produce the desired outcome, which
tool chain is used to produce the output. As many of you are well aware
there are great tools available yet they do all have their limitations.
I think there should be consensus among the LDP itself for making a
decision on which version of DSSSL/XSL style sheets are supported for
which parsers.
Have a nice Sunday
--
Togan Muftuoglu
Unofficial SuSE FAQ Maintainer
http://dinamizm.ath.cx
