discuss: part of the review?
Subject:
Re: part of the review?
From:
Poet/Joshua Drake ####@####.####
Date:
15 Jul 2001 06:29:33 -0000
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0107142327210.7460-100000@commandprompt.com>
>
>If you spent the same amount time doing this as writing emails saying which is
>better, it would be done by now :)
Heh, but we all have nothing better to do on 12:00 AM on a Saturday Night.
Were geeks ;)
>
>Btw, guys.. you are all doing a fantastic job :)
>
>JohnFlux
>
>
>On Sat, 14 Jul 2001, you wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 03:45:12PM -0400, David Merrill wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 01:17:16PM -0700, Poet/Joshua Drake wrote:
>> > > Hello,
>> > >
>> > > It makes sense as a natural progression to move to DocBook. It will
>> > > happen it just takes time for everyone to be comfortable with it. This is
>> > > why I suggest the following:
>> > >
>> > > 1. All new authors must use DocBook
>> > > 2. If a new author is taking over an unmaintained document that is in
>> > > LinuxDoc. The author may opt to use LinuxDoc.
>> > >
>> > > 3. Existing documents that are in LinuxDoc may be kept in LinuxDoc, but
>> > > you should move your document to DocBook when possible.
>> > >
>> > > 4. All NEW documents should be in Docbook. We can use the simplified
>> > > DocBook DTD if required.
>> >
>> > Can we please just `highly recommend' docbook, and make sure authors
>>
>> I would like us to be neutral as to the choice of docbook vs linuxdoc.
>> Each have their pros and cons.
>>
>> > know their documents may not wind up fully supported in the
>> > distributions. The indexing and cataloging being done by kde and gnome
>> > only handles docbook, so other formats won't be fully supported.
>>
>> Why not? What about the linuxdoc docs that are automatically
>> converted to docbook?
>>
>> > author likes linuxdoc enough to accept that, let them.
>> >
>> > I agree with you, Poet, that docbook is far superior to linuxdoc. and
>> > it's *not* harder to write. The 200+ tags are imposing, but in reality
>> > you only use about 20 of them, and only about 10 in regular use. The
>> > other 10 exist only in the header stuff, and you can cut-and-paste
>> > that from another document, replacing the data. It just isn't that
>> > hard.
>>
>> Sorry but it's a lot harder to write. We should encourage prospective
>> authors to use LinuxDoc and show them just how simple it is. Of course
>> they are also free to choose DocBook. Many docs are out-of-date and
>> the authors could more profitably spend their time revising their docs
>> instead of converting them to docbook (including possible problems
>> with the docbook tools).
>>
>> > The *tools* are the bitch, and the docbook processor removes that
>> > problem. Very few people are using it, which means either people
>> > aren't having as much trouble as we thought with their tools, or it
>> > isn't publicized enough.
>>
>> This is another advantage of LinuxDoc. It's a more convenient to
>> check out your formatting on your own machine. Still another
>> advantage of LinuxDoc is that the tools work fine on old PCs with
>> limited resources.
>>
>> 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.
--
