Re: DocBook instead of debiandoc-sgml?
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.
> > 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
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.
> 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.
Terry
--
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: