Subject:
Re: part of the review?
From:
Taketoshi Sano ####@####.####
Date:
7 Jul 2001 23:02:48 -0000
Message-Id: <y5an16heidw.fsf@kgh12351.nifty.ne.jp>
Hi.
# just sent to the list, not to any personality.
In ####@####.####
on Fri, 6 Jul 2001 00:15:54 -0700 (PDT),
on Re: part of the review?,
Poet/Joshua Drake ####@####.#### wrote:
> >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.
If we don't have enough educational stuff, then please provide
them. In fact, the LDP Author Guide, and informations on LDP
web site, has been all suggesting to use DocBook, or aren't they ?
When the author of sgml-tools has dropped the support for
linuxdoc DTD from his version 2 software (except for conversion
to docbook), users of linuxdoc DTD had been forced to move.
The author explained that it was requested way from some of LDP
people.
Did that work ? I say, NO. It just left the old broken tool
unmaintained with various unofficial patches, and many documents
had been still written in unsupported linuxdoc DTD.
If the LDP insists on rejection of the documents in other formats
than just DocBook (SGML or XML ?), then authors who wish to keep
their time from anything except for just writing, will choose to
ignore the LDP, and put their docs in their own web.
Coercion will not work on authors as volunteers. Only education
will do.
> 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.
If a tool sucks, then that tool should be fixed, or new tool
should be created. If your DocParse can do the conversion,
then why don't you use it on the LDP ?
Months ago, Hiroshi Miura, a member of JF project, write a script
for conversion from linuxdoc DTD SGML to XML Well-Formed.
I haven't try it yet, and don't know what it does, but if the XML
is the way to go, then that approach may be better than the existing
one. (If anyone interested, please mail me. I'll send it to you.)
> >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.
The LDP already officially stated that Moving to DocBook has
been started. If you do think it is not sufficient, then
repeat it as much as you like. Maybe people welcome if you
can provide some "monthly news" with statistics of DocBook
migrated and other formatted documents, in order to let
world to be informed about the progress in the LDP.
World of DocBook is yet rapidly growing. This is one of the reasons
why some people can't get used to it, I suppose. When it is finished
on major features and stabilized, then Final Migration will start.
> And DocBook is easy.
Not so difficult one, I agree. But it is also true that
the tools consume much power (maybe not problem for many
people, but should we ignore the minority with ability ?)
Regards.
--
Taketoshi Sano: ####@####.####
