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

Re: debiandoc-sgml vs. docbook

On 29 Nov 1998, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> You can extend the docbook DTD with new entities and attributes, it's
> quite modular.

OK, given that what is the purpose of DebianDoc? Only to be a simpler

Your mail just said "why aren't people considering a meta-DTD," with no
further explanation. If you explained in some other forum I wouldn't have
seen it.
> I get a little annoyed when people claim to be intelligently trying to
> make decisions about Debian's SGML infrastructure with what seems to
> be little knowledge of SGML's capability and the existing standards.
> The "lets just hand-roll it, we don't care what anyone else is doing"
> attitude *has* to go.

I don't want to make any decisions about Debian's SGML infrastructure; I
have other things I do, and it is not my area of expertise. Happy to let
someone else make the decision.

However, I do want to understand the implications of any such decisions
for working on my documentation. e.g., I have considered using DocBook in
the past and rejected the idea; should I reconsider given your proposal? I
think I can also tell you about the things that would be important for
writing (e.g., the tutorial needs texinfo output and indexing). 

You asked for input, you got it. :-)


Reply to: