discuss: Re: is the linuxdoc DTD deprecated for LDP?
Subject:
Re: is the linuxdoc DTD deprecated for LDP?
From:
Tabatha Persad ####@####.####
Date:
5 Aug 2002 08:59:42 -0000
Message-Id: <1028527642.19863.219.camel@mysticchild.dbsoftware.com>
On Mon, 2002-08-05 at 03:55, Alexander Bartolich wrote:
> There is a document explaining whereabouts of the project
> (similar to the Author Guide here). I translated interesting
> parts:
>
> # Die HOWTOs sollten inhaltlich korrekt sein. Insbesondere
> # bei Übersetzungen von LDP HOWTOs sollte unbedingt vorher
> # überprüft werden, ob die HOWTO es überhaupt wert ist,
> # übersetzt zu werden. Leider gibt es beim LDP anscheinend
> # keine Qualitätskontrolle, so daß viele LDP HOWTOs teilweise
> # bis völlig falsch sind.
>
> Content of HOWTOs should be correct. Before considering
> translation of LDP HOWTOs you should absolutely verify
> that the HOWTO is worth the trouble of translation at all.
> Regrettably there does not seem to be quality control at LDP,
> resulting in a lot of LDP HOWTOs being partially or completely wrong.
Actually, there is a group of 30 volunteers working diligently to
address the format and content of new and existing documentation, with
new usually given priority over existing. In addition, though LinuxDoc
is still a very popular format, there is enough evidence that supports
DocBook, (XML in particular) to be considered most current flavor of
markup, and the most portable. The documentation and regular updates are
always in CVS, and readily available for check-out.
The use of Linuxdoc over DocBook is subjective, and I think there may be
plenty of reasons to continue using LinuxDoc, but I don't understand at
all why DocBook would be declined. Graphics support comes to mind.
> Take into account that LDP HOWTOs are based on a different
> formatting guideline. You can't just take over the existing
> format but possibly have to change it to the one described in
> this document. And the only example on that page is
> <!doctype linuxdoc system>
>
> Though this be madness, yet there is method in it.
>
> The document links to the old site name, by the way:
> http://www.linuxdoc.org/docs.html#howto
> So I guess that Marco Budde has no close relationship to
> this list or TLDP.
I think it's great to have the LDP represented, but maybe more
correlation to the main site should be considered. Are all the
documents at that site in Linuxdoc? Surely there is a combination of
people familiar with the tools to be able to verify docbook in German?
If not, then maybe there is a gap that needs to be fulfilled. Why not
take this opportunity to bring things up to date?
> Can any of the 'politicians' please speak up?
That would be fantastic!
As for the document that started this discussion, I think the author
keep it ready. David Merrill's Lampadas system for the LDP should be
able to use this DocBook source for users accessing that language.
--
Tabatha Persad
Web: www.merlinmonroe.com
Linux Documentation Project Editor (http://www.tldp.org)
Gnu Writing Movement Contributor (http://gwm.gnu.org)
Linux Counter Area Manager US:wa (http://counter.li.org)
