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

Re: Requiring use of DocBook; LinuxDoc

On Jul 6,  2:22am, Fish wrote:
> Subject: Re: Requiring use of DocBook; LinuxDoc
> Subject: Re: Requiring use of DocBook; LinuxDoc
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 02:38:50PM -0700, Gary Preckshot wrote:
> > > Jorge Godoy wrote:
> > >
> > > > DocBook _IS_ the LDP recommended authoring SGML DTD. LinuxDoc is
> > > > supported.
> > >
> So metalab people WILL accept new HOWTO's or HOWTO translations
> even if the author stubbornly REFUSES to switch to DocBook?

IMO, "yes". The existing tools work just fine and can generate all
acceptable formats/variants. The DTD is acceptable albeit sparse.
I think it would be ridiculous to turn away new or updated content
just because the SGML is not DocBook.

However, having said that, and having dealt with, and helped to
build and design the processing environment the LDP uses, I think
anything that is *not* SGML (linuxdoc /or/ docbook) should be turned
away; OR we can assist in finding markup help to get the doc in SGML
prior to accepting it. Accepting "raw" html and/or text or other forms
make it difficult for  such documents to flow properly in the process
(which includes creating variants, filtering for different lists/forms,
indexing, etc). In the future perhaps other DTD flavors and/or XML
will be added to the list of acceptable formats.

I know there might be a difference of opinion on this subject,
but at this time I honestly believe there is very little downside
(if any) for the LDP to continue to accept linuxdoc SGML.


Greg Ferguson     - s/w engr / mtlhd         | gferg@sgi.com
SGI Tech Pubs     - http://techpubs.sgi.com  | 
Linux Doc Project - http://www.linuxdoc.org  |

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