Re: debiandoc-sgml vs. docbook
In article <[🔎] Pine.GSO.3.95.981128233957.6503Jfirstname.lastname@example.org>, Havoc Pennington <email@example.com> writes:
> If DocBook meets all our needs, why bother with the meta-DTD
> business? Just use DocBook.
Docbook *doesn't* meet our needs. It does meet the need for tables
(CALS model) and figures and all that, more or less.
. docbook is way to scary for newbies.
. docbook doesn't support texinfo or ASCII or NROFF output.
. even then we'd have a lot of work ahead of us to extend
docbook, i.e., the <package> tag, etc., etc. Volunteer?
> If DocBook doesn't, then we still have to improve DebianDoc even if
> we do have the meta-DTD.
Well, let's say it wouldn't be as pressing.
> So either way there's no point in having a meta-DTD. No? :-)
.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>