discuss: part of the review?
Subject:
Re: part of the review?
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
14 Jul 2001 22:12:14 -0000
Message-Id: <20010714145933.A1019@lafn.org>
On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 David Lawyer 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
>
On Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 12:15:54AM -0700, Poet/Joshua Drake wrote:
> Two things.
>
> 1. LinuxDoc is not easier technically,
Yes it is. LinuxDoc has fewer and shorter tags, seldom requires
end-tags, needs no tags for paragraphs, and mostly avoids nested tags.
As a result it's much easier to type and read. If it didn't exist, it
would need to be invented.
> just less intimidating. DocBook has a lot more tags, which confuses
> people. The problem is one of education.
Such "education" takes a lot of time. There are much more important
things to learn.
> >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.
They may be mistaken.
> The reasons are very clear. DocBook is current, and maintained.
Taketoshi Sano has been maintaining linuxdoc.
> DocBook is XML and SGML. DocBook because of its SGML/XML nature has
> lots of tools, and lots of support.
>
> And DocBook is easy.
As compared to what? As compared to LinuxDoc it's hard.
> >think that new authors need to be fully informed about the pros and
> >cons of LinuxDoc in the LAG.
David Lawyer
