discuss: DocBook is a catastrophe
Subject:
Re: [discuss] DocBook is a catastrophe
From:
Yaroslav Fedevych ####@####.####
Date:
14 Dec 2005 10:43:14 -0000
Message-Id: <20051214104309.GA28052@fly.osdn.org.ua>
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 10:28:57AM +0000, Machtelt Garrels wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2005, Yves Bellefeuille wrote:
>
> > I'm convinced that we're shooting ourselves in the foot by recommending
> > DocBook at this time.
>
> The last three documents we accepted for review, were in PDF, HTML and
> (don't shoot) MS Word. It should be clear to our writers that their main
> goal is to write. We do not force DocBook or any other source format upon
> them.
> Please let me know where on the tldp.org website you have the impression
> that this is the only accepted input format, so that we can chose better
> wording. Maybe we can make it more clear in the author guide, too,
> eventhough it says here:
>
> http://www.tldp.org/LDP/LDP-Author-Guide/html/acceptedversions.html
>
> "New Documents
>
>
> A new document may be submitted to the LDP in any format. Documents which
> are not in DocBook or LinuxDoc will be converted by a volunteer. The
> author is responsible for adding markup to any revisions which are made. "
>
> Once you have the formatted document, it is not too hard to add or change
> some text, or is it?
>
> Tille.
>
Sorry but it is if you want to add a chapter or two, or just reorganize
the whole thing. For me, DocBook is much like a binary-only format -- I might
as well use compressed PostScript, PDF or DVI with some strange font encoding.
It does not matter for new documents, but for existing ones, it does.
--
X Windows: The problem for your problem.
