On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 11:36:18AM -0600, Adam DiCarlo wrote: > > 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. I say both should be accepted. We haven't decided it but we should, once and for all, state so clearly. > > As for the question, will the content be better in DocBook? No -- not > without proper use of tags, education about DocBook, etc. Agreed. However, there is currently a lot more information on DocBook that there was before. Education should not be an issue. > > > Besides, that DDP policy is outdated, we've all realized in the meantime how 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. <package> Does not do, unfortunately, nothing. It could link to packages.debian.org, or point to /usr/share/doc/package, but the tag itself just makes it TT. AFAIK In any case some specific tags could be made and a new Docbook DTD created for the DDP. > Again: we should accept both. Josip, maybe you already meant that. Again: yes. > > Some questions, if we're going to support DocBook: > > - Support DocBook SGML or DocBook XML or both? > - Can anyone work out tagging standards such as who to mark up > packages? > s/who/how? IMHO packages should be linked to the packages' pages. That is a <package>XX</package> should be come a link to packages.debian.org/XX (or a local link to /usr/share/doc/XX) > - 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... It's already done, as pointed out. I will add this to the DDP policy draft. Javi
Attachment:
pgpTDHHi140km.pgp
Description: PGP signature