[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: experimental release of linuxdoc-tools (based on sgml-tools 1.0.9)
- To: Taketoshi Sano <>, ,
- Subject: Re: experimental release of linuxdoc-tools (based on sgml-tools 1.0.9)
- From: "Greg Ferguson" <>
- Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 09:27:48 -0400
- Cc: , , , , , , ,
- In-Reply-To: Taketoshi Sano <email@example.com> "Re: experimental release of linuxdoc-tools (based on sgml-tools 1.0.9)" (May 17, 7:11pm)
References: <20000517092453B.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <20000517191121G.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Resent-Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 09:28:27 -0400 (EDT)
- Resent-Message-ID: <sI5OFB.A.BcF.n5pI5@murphy>
On May 17, 7:11pm, Taketoshi Sano wrote:
> Subject: Re: experimental release of linuxdoc-tools
> at "16 May 2000 21:51:31 -0400",
> Adam Di Carlo <email@example.com> writes:
> > Taketoshi Sano <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > I have put a source archive of modified sgml-tools 1.0.9
> > > with the name of linuxdoc-tools.
> > Why? Seems like this would cause confusion at this point..
> Because I have heard that current sgml-tools v1 & v2 do
> cause the confusion among users / writers in LDP.
> I think "sgml-tools" should mean the work provided by Cees,
> and it has been v2, the tools for DocBook.
Yes, but I would agree that it's still confusing to many users.
> I am afraid that if I release the new "sgml-tools" 1.0.10,
> or newer version, then users / writers will get into more
> confusion. The bug-fixed version of sgml-tools v1, will
> keep to be the tools for LinuxDoc DTD, so Linuxdoc-Tools
> are better name for it to avoid the confusion, I think.
> But if you, Adam, or Cees, advise me to use the name of
> "SGML-Tools-V1", then I will follow you.
> Please let me know how I should do.
I'd like to see if we can get linuxdoc support into the v2
sgml-tools packages. We'd need to provide the DTD and a
set of DSSSL stylesheets along with perhaps a couple of
catalog files. I don't know if there's anything else (at
this point) that would be needed beyond those components.
Do you think we should go that route? That way we have 1
toolset (jade/openjade), with support for both DTDs (DocBook
Greg Ferguson - s/w engr / mtlhd | email@example.com
SGI Tech Pubs - http://techpubs.sgi.com |
Linux Doc Project - http://www.linuxdoc.org |
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com