Re: DocBook instead of debiandoc-sgml?
Terry Dawson <terry@perf.no.itg.telstra.com.au> writes:
> Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote:
>
> > Just one more package we would be dependent upon. Further, do we want
> > to let a browser "decide" how things should look? I don't think so.
>
> Just a small point, but the whole idea of SGML is that it deals with the
> structure of a document and does not deal with presentation issues at all.
> So, yes, if you're writing in SGML you do want the tools to decide how
> things should look. Whether you want to trust Lynx/Netscape or some other
> tool to do it is another matter.
The point here was that we should get the text output from an SGML
source via HTML and a browser. Then the way the text output would
look like would be dependent on the way the browser interprets the
HTML source. That's not the way to go in my opinion.
> > > we are missing two very important things: images and tables, (plus set of
> > > books, glossary, ...)
> >
> > Well, why don't we start working on these then? Can I see some
> > proposal if you've ideas for them?
>
> Unless there is a good reason not to, why not use the graphic and
> *table elements as defined in the DocBook DTD? The thing that really
This is good suggestion. It also fits in some other thoughts.
> bothers me about these sort of SGML processing discussions (I've just
> survived one on the LDP list) is that the concensus always ends up
> that "We have special requirements and it is easier to modify our
> unique set of processing tools than a standard one".
>
> The SGML-tools (aka LDP tools) people look like they are going to
> now abandon SGML altogether and go with XML.
We also want to provide the documentation writers a stable platform to
write on instead of a moving target which changes every six months or so.
For now we keep maintaining debiandoc-sgml, but I have an open mind on
moving to DocBook accompanied by an as smooth as possible migration
path. As stated before on this list: the most important thing is that
the documentation gets written. Moving to another DTD can always be
very well supported by tools and thereby is much less important.
I read an announcement yesterday that SGML-Tools would start changing
over to using the DocBook DTD somewhere later this year. Let's follow
their findings.
> > What's wrong with the current output? I think the manuals look good.
>
> It's a matter of personal preference I guess, but I think the DebianDoc
> output looks a bit clunky and unprofessional, but that is an issue
> completely unrelated to the DTD, and everthing to do with being able
> to customise the output style.
I agree there's room for improvement, but that's indeed a question of
"adjusting" the output generators.
> Terry
Thanks,
Ardo
--
Ardo van Rangelrooij
home email: ardo.van.rangelrooij@tip.nl, ardo@debian.org
home page: http://www.tip.nl/users/ardo.van.rangelrooij
PGP fp: 3B 1F 21 72 00 5C 3A 73 7F 72 DF D9 90 78 47 F9
--
E-mail the word "unsubscribe" to debian-doc-request@lists.debian.org
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble? E-mail to listmaster@debian.org .
Reply to: