discuss: Staff Election was Re: LDP Committee?
Subject:
Re: Staff Election was Re: LDP Committee?
From:
Stein Gjoen ####@####.####
Date:
9 Mar 2005 22:49:46 -0000
Message-Id: <422F7E77.2000006@mail.nyx.net>
####@####.#### wrote:
>
> I'm new here so maybe I've fallen for it hook, line and sinker ...
>
> I don't have anything against LinuxDoc in particluar, I just don't see the
> benefits overall. It *might* arguably be easier for an author, although it
> still seems to be in the same ballpark as DocBook: I can't see why an
> author who can get their head around LinuxDoc couldn't get their head
> around DocBook, it isn't a quantum leap ... apples and pears maybe, but
> definitely not apples and oranges.
The simplicity makes it easy to make tools for it. See below.
[snip]
> Why is this an intrinsically good thing? How can it be more advanced if
> the end product is far less useful in terms of process-ability?
>
> Also, they
>
>> fail to understand that the semantic analysis benefits of DocBook vs
>> author-time-cost are usually below the prevailing benefit cost ratio.
>
>
> Hmm, I'd like to see some hard stats on that one. The "semantic analysis
I was able to make some tools for converting LinuxDoc to NetHelp
using simple awk script, screenshots are on my web pages (TARPL).
Unfortunately NetHelp is no longer supported by Mozilla. Semantic
analysis was not needed.
> benefits" are what could help LDP avoid the construction of an SQL
> database to handle metadata that could easily be stored in XML inside each
> document, and searched using XSL ... but you need end tags (and start
> tags) to do it :-)
How best to store metadata, even if itshould be inside documents or not,
remains to be seen.
> Sorry, I just don't get it. Does LinuxDoc pre-date DocBook, or is it a
> reaction to DocBook's perceived difficulty?
LinuxDoc was the format we started using in TLDP. This goes
about 10 years back, not sure if that predates DocBook.
Regards,
Stein Gjoen
