discuss: Revision History, Revisited (Again)
Subject:
Re: Revision History, Revisited (Again)
From:
Tabatha Marshall ####@####.####
Date:
23 Jan 2004 21:46:49 -0000
Message-Id: <1074894381.27766.44.camel@mysticchild>
On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 12:59, Tobias Reif wrote:
> Hi Tabatha
>
> On Fri 2004-01-23 Tabatha Marshall wrote:
> > I don't want to stir things up about the types of markup and their
> > merits or detriments. But we do need a revhistory in the proper
> > place. Ideally, DocBook would fix the revhistory so it could appear
> > within an appendix or another backmatter section. However, the
> > structure of DocBook documents has become a de facto standard, and
> > until DocBook's makers change the standards to something else, we
> > should be using it as it was designed to be used.
>
> "DocBook's makers" (the DocBook TC [1]) can't "fix the revhistory" if
> they don't know about your requirements. If you have suggestions (such
> as allowing a certain element in new places/contexts), you can discuss
> them at the DocBook list [2] and/or submit an RFE at sf.net [3].
Actually, pursuing a change with DocBook may be a little premature,
given the solution to adjust the DSSSL. And don't get me wrong, I think
the revision history definitely belongs at the top.
I prefer Emma's idea of specifying in the DSSSL how many revisions are
shown in their usual place over making any changes to DocBook itself. I
am comfortable with the markup - just trying to address the clutter that
can occur in the revision history.
Tab
--
Tabatha Marshall
Web: www.merlinmonroe.com
Linux Documentation Project Review Coordinator (http://www.tldp.org)
Linux Counter Area Manager US:wa (http://counter.li.org)
