Re: debiandoc to docbook conversion situation review
Osamu Aoki <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> 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
I don't like either alternative here. IMHO the right thing
> file -> application : TT : filename
Cleaerly should be filename. Perhaps if it has a trailing slash,
should be <filename class="directory"> ?
> prgn -> application : TT : command
<command> is the right thing here.
> tt -> application : TT : type
Both are wrong, IMHO; use <token> or <literal>.
> var -> application : italics : parameter
<replacable> is the right tag.
> example -> literallayout : TT : screen
Hmm. Good one. I'd have to play with it. Both might be right for
> strong -> emphasis
> em -> emphasis : -- : emphasis
I think <emphasis> is right for both.
> heading -> (larger) : title
Doesn't this get moved in Debiandoc2docbookxml to sectional titles?
Philippe, can you make this so? Or do you have objections to how I
laid it out?
> 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.
Yes, it is essential to get this right.
Can we make these changes and do a more full review (including making
sure that <ref>, <qref>, and in fact all tags map out properly).
...Adam Di Carlo..<email@example.com>...<URL:http://www.onshored.com/>