[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Requiring use of DocBook; LinuxDoc



Gary Preckshot <garrell@inreach.com> writes:

> > > > * Do you think DB:TDG is bad resource?
> > >
> > > No, I think it's a reference, hardly a tutorial.
> > 
> > The LAG/H-H is the tutorial, and references DB:TDG.
> 
> Tell me something I don't know.

DocBook _IS_ the LDP recommended authoring SGML DTD. LinuxDoc is
supported. 

With all this discussion, you seem to ignore this fact. 

Maybe you should be here when we've decided to change to DocBook. Now
migration has already started. We must talk about how to improve
DocBook authoring tools, documentation and things like that. 

> That's a lot different than knowing what it will look like.
> I still need to know something about the effect. If DocBook
> is more efficient at achieving the effect that I want, I'm
> all for it. However, I still need to know that what I'm
> putting down will be some reasonable relation to what else I
> write. With DocBook, the formatting software fulfills the
> function of a very efficient secretary. I've always wanted
> to see what was going out before approving final release.

You can do it. Install DocBook following the instructions from one of
many websites available on internet, download the LDP stylesheet and
convert the documents to whatever format you want to. You'll get
basically the same looking. (I won't say exactly because you may have
some other customizations of your own)

Now, I ask: what's the advantage of worring about the structure if
you're still worried with the appearance of your document? 

I agree that you may want to know how it will look while on the
Internet, but if it doesn't looks good, what are you going to do?
Telling us to change our stylesheet (the right thing) or changing tags
to make the document suitable to your aesthetics standards? Too many
people chooses the wrong approach. 

> SGML has another danger that has dogged authors since time
> immemorial. That is, being quoted out of context. With the
> markup, interested parties can pull anything they want out
> of your work, and you may have no recourse.

Unless you can point them the original document and say that the
information was manipulated. 

What other online publishing format don't have this problem? I've
looked at the page you cited
(http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/NUREGS/SR0800/CH7/referenc.htm) and I could
easily have edited these PDF files and published them. American
copyright's are invalid here in Brazil. We don't have the same
software laws. And it's valid for other countries too... 

There's no safety on what's on the net. It can be used the way that
people want. And be manipulated. 


Lets start doing something, not just talking. We need authors. We need
a good tool. Our authors are trying to use DocBook and I --- and
others --- am here to help them. Do you want to start using it? Ok. I
can show you a starting point to DocBook
(http://metalab.unc.edu/godoy/using-docbook) and give you all needed
help that you couldn't get there. I'm changing this document for two
purposes: including more basic information (maybe another document) 
and converting it to a chapter for the LAG (Mark, we chould change
this name. It may be either the Linux Authoring Guide or the Linux
Administrator's Guide. I suggest it be LDAG - Linux Documentation
Authoring Guide). 

Feedback is appreciated.


Thanks and sorry for my bad English.
-- 
Godoy.  <godoy@conectiva.com> 

Departamento de Publicações
Publishing Department                   Conectiva S.A.


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org