discuss: linuxdoc, query, bug ?
Subject:
Re: [discuss] linuxdoc, query, bug ?
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
27 Feb 2006 08:07:14 -0000
Message-Id: <20060227080512.GA2401@lafn.org>
On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 07:57:08PM -0800, steven aatkinson wrote:
> There was recently some posts about linuxdoc and docbook. Sorry for
> the belated post, but last year I learnt how to use the linuxdoc
> sgml markup and have found it very usable and great for a simple
> webpages with a standard (albeit basic) look-n-feel.
>
> It's a shame the standard is not more popular. If it were, perhaps
> we wouldn't have broken pdf document conversion, and better feature
> support (including images, which AFAIK are only usable with the not
> terrifically documented or intuitive:
> "<figure>
> <eps file="none.eps">
> <img src="images/tkhearts.jpg">
> </figure>"
There's also a caption tag for putting a caption under the image.
[snip]
> What's the status of the linuxdoc's current maintainer-ship ?
> I had "http://www.debian.org/~sano/linuxdoc-tools/" as the homepage,
> but this page appears down.
I suspect that it's not being maintained. There are some things that
need doing, like making it simpler to include images as you point out
above. Another is having the text output generate plain text by
default instead of highlighted text containing escape sequences that
most text viewers don't know how to deal with. This problem is
discussed in my howto: Howtos-with-LinuxDoc.
Are you interested in maintaining it? It does need a maintainer.
In my opinion, more tags should only be added if there's a strong need
for them, since the main beauty of LinuxDoc is it's simplicity and
minimal number of tags. You could become the maintainer of the Debian
package and then supply your revisions to other distributions too. I
think this is what sano did.
See my comparison with DocBook at
www.lafn.org/~dave/linux/ld_vs_db.txt
David Lawyer
