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
alternative?
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. :-)
Havoc
Reply to: