Re: Blessing DocBook/XML for Debian documentation?
Allegedly, on Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 11:50:02AM +0900, Osamu Aoki stated:
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 11:44:39AM +0000, W. Borgert wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > http://www.debian.org/doc/ddp says "We use DebianDoc SGML for our
> > documents", and the policy says the same. However, more and more
> > documents in and for Debian are in fact written using DocBook/XML.
> > My plea is to officially allow DocBook/XML.
>
> I think we discussed this here. Answer is yes if someone bothered to
> make web page generation script (Makefile) for XML. Also that person
> has to tell system admin which package needs to be installed. Then we
> have no issue including XML doc. I am waiting for this to happen.
>
> > (My personal reasons for preferring DocBook/XML:
> > - more mainstream, used by many large projects
> Yes.
>
> > - easy to generate *roff manual pages
> > - good-looking PDFs using db2latex-xsl
> Hmmmm...
>
> > - I can use Emacs nxml-mode
> > - WYSIWYG addicts can use the non-free editor XXE
> > - supports images, tables, etc.
>
> Yes, yes, ... This is big plus.
[snip]
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> Go for it as long as this XML transition is well planned soft
> transition. We do not need to swich all the documentation at once. I
> really want to have option to choose SGML and XML.
>
> Osamu
A related question about generating XML/DocBook: is anyone here
sufficiently familiar with both DocBook and reStructuredText to judge
whether the latter can actually generate well-formed output of the
former?
If yes, this might make it much simpler for some people to produce
DocBook, without having to edit XML directly.
Thanks,
Raymond
--
"Be Nice, or Leave - By Order of the Management"
(Sign above door, Black Sheep Inn, Wakefield)
GPG Fingerprint: 2E4D 8605 DD48 E80F F893 1C02 B65D 86D9 3B3C 0E03
Encrypted E-mail Preferred
Bush-whacked 2004! Try to relax and enjoy the Chaos :-)
Reply to: