discuss: part of the review?
Subject:
Re: part of the review?
From:
Poet/Joshua Drake ####@####.####
Date:
6 Jul 2001 07:16:30 -0000
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0107060012490.1194-100000@commandprompt.com>
>I strongly disagree. I think that LinuxDoc is a lot easier for new
>writers to learn and use. Since anything submitted in LinuxDoc gets
>automatically converted by LDP to DocBook, it also becomes available
Two things.
1. LinuxDoc is not easier technically, just less intimidating. DocBook
has a lot more tags, which confuses people. The problem is one of
education.
2. The LinuxDoc to DocBook conversion sucks. It badly sucks. In fact, it
WILL NOT validate. It is one of the reasons we made DocParse.
J
>teaching new authors how to use LinuxDoc. If you irrationally require
>them to use DocBook, then all my work on this is mostly wasted. I
It is not irrational. It is simply a state of growth. Every major
documentation project is either, A. Using Docbook, or B. Moving to it. The
reasons are very clear. DocBook is current, and maintained. DocBook is XML
and SGML. DocBook because of its SGML/XML nature has lots of tools, and
lots of support.
And DocBook is easy.
>think that new authors need to be fully informed about the pros and
>cons of LinuxDoc in the LAG.
>
> David Lawyer
>
>_________________________
>http://list.linuxdoc.org/
>
--
--
<COMPANY>CommandPrompt - http://www.commandprompt.com </COMPANY>
<PROJECT>OpenDocs, LLC. - http://www.opendocs.org </PROJECT>
<PROJECT>LinuxPorts - http://www.linuxports.com </PROJECT>
<WEBMASTER>LDP - http://www.linuxdoc.org </WEBMASTER>
--
Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology,"
start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.
--
