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

docbook for DDP

Josip Rodin <joy@gkvk.hr> 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 Besides, that DDP policy is outdated, we've all realized in the meantime how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..<adam@onshore-devel.com>...<URL:http://www.onshored.com/>

Reply to: