debiandoc to docbook conversion situation review
Hi,
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 11:37:08AM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> > 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.
Interesting idea but package page only provide i386 packages at this
moment, if I remember correctly.
This lead me to check few things. I was reverse translating Junichi's
SGML to debiandoc-sgml, I found out Junichi was using <productname> tag
in place of where we may want <package> tag. I guess one to one
conversion still is possible using this.
I was also checking Debiandoc2docbookxml and it seems to convert:
Concersion result of font used in : SGML tag used in
debiandoc Debiandoc2docbookxml : debiandoc : Junichi's document
package -> application : TT : productname
file -> application : TT : filename
prgn -> application : TT : command
tt -> application : TT : type
var -> application : italics : parameter
example -> literallayout : TT : screen
strong -> emphasis
em -> emphasis : -- : emphasis
heading -> (larger) : title
I think everyone to agree on these tag use is very important at this
stage. Current Debiandoc2docbookxml template may need some tweaking
before using it to bulk of debiandoc documentation. Current situation
lose many details while it may print OK.
Osamu
--
~\^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: