Re: debiandoc-sgml vs. docbook
NB that I have moved this discussion from debian-policy to debian-doc.
Havoc Pennington writes ("Re: debiandoc-sgml vs. docbook"):
> On 23 Nov 1998, Michael Alan Dorman wrote:
...
> > Furthermore, based on statements Ian made at the time of its
> > introduction, it's big benefit was that it gave better postscript
> > output. Of course, to this end, it uses lout, which, when I was
> > working on the early days of the alpha port 18 months ago, had no
> > active maintainer. In fact, glancing at the changelog, I see that it
> > *still* has no active maintainer, and hasn't been touched in more than
> > a year.
Err, perhaps I need to do something about Lout. Yes, I can see from
the bugs pages that I do.
One of the reasons it's not a very recently-updated package is because
the upstream package is reasonably stable and the packaging reasonably
straightforward. I see that it's not been quite so stable since I
left it for a bit ...
> Yeah, the lout output was yucky. It has LaTeX now. It also has texinfo,
> which DocBook still lacks.
What did you not like about the debiandoc Lout PostScript output ?
> At this time, the main disadvantage of DebianDoc is that it lacks some
> features, like indexing and (I think?) including figures/graphics. I think
> it is planned to implement them though.
I think figures would be good too.
Ian.
Reply to: