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

Re: Inconsistencies in DDP home page

In article <[🔎] 199811041506.QAA24174@dunite.icp.inpg.fr>, Rafael Laboissiere <rafael@icp.inpg.fr> writes:
> Browsing the DDP home page (http://www.debian.org/~elphick/ddp) I
> found some inconsistent links:

>     Debian Project Manual -> Debian Project History

Fixed in CVS.  Fix will propogate to the page eventually.

>     Debian Packaging HOWTO -> Debian Programmers' Manual

I've actually removed this from the top page since it's stalled
completely AFAIK.  Hopefully, with the recent work being done on a new
maintainer's HOWTO, we can just eliminate this.  (God, I hope it
doesn't stall out like so many others.)

I'm going on a war on stalled documentation.  More posts to follow.

> Moreover, the link "HTML on-line", in the Debian Project History
> entry, points to
> http://www.debian.org/~elphick/manuals.html/project-history/ch1.html,
> but IMO it should actually point to
> http://www.debian.org/~elphick/manuals.html/project-history.

No comment... I'll let Oliver make this call.

> Changing subject: is there any plan to move from the Debiandoc-SGML
> markup to DocBook?  My understanding is that SGML-tools team did
> already the move for version 2.0.

If they jumped off a cliff would you?

Did I already respond to this?

I personally fear that our curve for new documenters is already high
enough (make, cvs, SGML in any form), and that using a complex DTD
like docbook is going to make things worse.

Mind you, I love docbook; I use it all the time for work.  But I'm not
really bugged that much by Debiandoc-SGML.  Since it is specific to
debian, I feel it's a more focused DTD which works really well for us
(kudos to Ardo).

.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>

Reply to: