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

Re: docbook for DDP

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 Besides, that DDP policy is outdated, we've all realized in the meantime how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?

	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.


Attachment: pgpCBmpRvw8XY.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: