docbook for DDP
Josip Rodin <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> As Osamu noticed, the library packaging guide needs tables which don't exist
> in DebianDoc SGML. I'm quite open to switching the rest of the new
> maintainers' guide to a more advanced format if it's going to help
> making the document content better.
Well, I don't think we should be XOR -- just OR is fine. That is, we
can accept DocBook (XML? SGML?) as well as DebianDoc.
As for the question, will the content be better in DocBook? No -- not
without proper use of tags, education about DocBook, etc.
> Besides, that DDP policy is outdated, we've all realized in the meantime how
> DebianDoc SGML is not the holy cow it was supposed to be...
We shouldn't go too far in the other direction. Debiandoc-SGML has
some advantages over DocBook: it's simpler, there are some nice
Debian-specific tags (<package>), it styles in a way that maybe we're
not in love with but at least we're used to.
Again: we should accept both. Josip, maybe you already meant that.
Some questions, if we're going to support DocBook:
- Support DocBook SGML or DocBook XML or both?
- What about a stylesheet so that we can build docs that style in the
right way? In some ways, DocBook default article style (DSSSL at
least) is kinda gross. Any volunteers?
- Can anyone work out tagging standards such as who to mark up
- Any volunteers for a tool to convert from DebianDoc to DocBook?
I would suggest XSLT stylesheet if possible -- I'm not sure that can
work with Debiandoc *SGML* tho...
...Adam Di Carlo..<email@example.com>...<URL:http://www.onshored.com/>