discuss: Author Guide SGML Smoke Test for Emacs/PSGML
Subject:
Re: Author Guide SGML Smoke Test for Emacs/PSGML
From:
Mark Komarinski ####@####.####
Date:
14 Mar 2001 01:11:05 -0000
Message-Id: <3AAEC521.13F6A24F@valinux.com>
"Patrick K. O'Brien" wrote:
>
> The smoke test fails if the test file is XML. The message is that "XML
> forbids omitted tag minimization." While the Author Guide claims that there
> is little difference between the SGML and XML versions of DocBook, this is
> one of several examples that, as a newcomer, cause me to see the current
> Author Guide as less friendly toward those of us who want to start with XML
> and could care less about SGML.
IMO, incorrect. I've outlined these changes required to go from SGML to
XML in many places within the LAG. There's even a section devoted to it.
http://linuxdoc.org/LDP/LDP-Author-Guide/docbookxml.html
XML support in the LAG has only been in the last two months. XML DocBook
has not been around for all that long either.
>
> Now, clearly the smoke test is labeled as an SGML Smoke Test and I'm sure
> that if I jumped over to the SGML vs XML section I could figure out how to
> fix this for XML. But my point is that I don't want to learn SGML and then
> learn modifications for XML. I just want to learn the XML way. So why isn't
> there an XML Smoke Test? Why is XML getting shortchanged in a very recent
> version of a guide targeted for new authors?
It hasn't been written yet. There are at least three main writers, and
a pretty large number of contributors to the LAG. DocBook isn't my full
time job, so I can't spend 40+ hours a week making sure it's up to date. This
is a pretty large (over 100 page) document that has to be continually updated.
I'd be happy to accept your comments and integrate them into the LAG.
>
> I really think we're missing out on the chance to ride the groundswell of
> support for XML in general. If DocBook takes off it will be because of XML.
> Clinging to all this SGML crap is shortsighted. Let's face it, SGML just
> never reached its potential. But XML is going gangbusters. New users of
> DocBook and new LDP authors are going to be more interested in XML than in
> SGML. So the LDP needs to do an about face and put XML in the forefront and
> SGML in the closet.
I think a year ago it was s/SGML/LinuxDoc/g, but that might be just me.
The LDP has spent the better part of 18 months getting everyone to DocBook
from LinuxDoc. The transtition for authors from SGML to XML is minimal IF
authors follow the conventions laid out in the LAG and in DocBook:TDG.
N.B. I converted the LAG within three hours on a plane trip by hand. IIRC,
jade has tools to perform most of that conversion for you automatically.
The XML/SGML issue should be shelved right now until we get everyone
to *some* version of DocBook.
-Mark
--
Mark Komarinski - Senior Systems Engineer - VA Linux Systems
(cell) 978-697-2228
(email) ####@####.####
"Have one day pleasant" - Babelfish
