Re: another doc that should be integrated in ddp: libpkg-guide
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 10:53:36PM -0600, Adam DiCarlo wrote:
> > I have patch almost ready :)
>
> Why does it need a patch at all? I bet it needs a makefile, tho.
If it is separate document, no need. Simple makefile was good enough.
> I see from other messages you were working on a patch to make it
> debiandoc-sgml? That seems kinda backwards -- is there some rule that
> DDP documents have to be in debiandoc-sgml? I thought we adopted
> DocBook (SGML or XML) as a possible format. DocBook is more detailed,
> expressive, and standard....
Yes. DocBook is nicer but to include this document directly into
developer-reference, conversion to debiandoc-sgml was easier.
except table, there were not much tagging done in this document. Just
one to one conversion was done to make my patch. (See my other post for URL)
+TAG translation table
+ DocbookSGML = debiandoc
+ para = p
+ filename = file
+ command = prgn (could have been tt)
+ parameter = var
+ type = tt
+ screen = example
+ emphasis = strong
+ productname = package
+ ulink = url (not simple)
+ chapter = sect2 ??
+ section = sect3
+ title = header ?? (only for chapter, check table)
+ table = make it into sect and list/taglist?
+ tgroup cols="2" = list
+ tbody = item
+ row = list
+ entry = item
--
~\^o^/~~~ ~\^.^/~~~ ~\^*^/~~~ ~\^_^/~~~ ~\^+^/~~~ ~\^:^/~~~ ~\^v^/~~~ +++++
Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org> Cupertino CA USA, GPG-key: A8061F32
.''`. Debian Reference: post-installation user's guide for non-developers
: :' : http://qref.sf.net and http://people.debian.org/~osamu
`. `' "Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software" --- Social Contract
Reply to: