discuss: My rejected "replacement" for the Author Guide
Subject:
Re: My rejected "replacement" for the Author Guide
From:
Mark Komarinski ####@####.####
Date:
9 Feb 2016 16:18:21 +0000
Message-Id: <56BA1185.8090908@wayga.org>
On 2/9/2016 10:59 AM, Martin A. Brown wrote:
>> When I came to LDP in 1998 there was no Author Guide. But there
>> was a 3-page (printed) learn-by-examples for Linuxdoc and one just
>> emailed in submissions. A new leader, Lars Wirzenius, in early
>> 1999 automated submissions and it worked (I used it), but he
>> resigned due to not wanting to tolerate insults and then no one
>> continued to implement his (beta) automated submission system.
>> Under Lars' system, you just emailed to a submit address and sent
>> your password in the clear. So LDP had simple automatic submission
>> 17 years ago.
> Ah, interesting. Neat.
>
> That reminds me of the first-generation of tools for whois domain
> and Internet number resource management. There was an email gateway
> that would handle change requests. In the late 1990s, this fell by
> the wayside because of ease of abuse. [Some used cryptographic
> tools to secure the content and provide authorization, but
> eventually, web applications and interfaces riding on HTTP
> supplanted this.]
I started the LAG after trying to figure out how DocBook worked. I'll
admit my bias towards a cleaner and richer format, but not everyone
shares my opinion and I'll have to deal with it ;)
> I see your point here about separating the process/policy content in
> the LDP Author Guide from the technical matters, which will differ
> depending on format and tooling.
>
> I'd hate to remove the good DocBook information from the LDP Author
> Guide, but if we are going to accept multiple formats, it would be
> good to examine the LDP Author Guide to see where we could
> de-emphasize DocBook, while retaining the valuable information for
> those who do choose DocBook.
>
> Mark: Any objections to some adjustment of LDP Author Guide along
> those lines? I'd be happy to volunteer to read, suggest and
> possibly provide patches, if you would like.
No problem there. It looks like there's a link to the
'Howtos-with-LinuxDoc-mini-HOWTO'. Maybe break the various acceptance
formats into their own HOWTOs and have the LAG link to each of those and
then document the LDP processes? It'll be a lot of work but will allow
each person with their own their own space to list the features and use
of their particular format.
-Mark
