On woensdag 8 september 2021 09:22:11 CEST Gard Spreemann wrote: > there should perhaps be an authoritative version of the text, > from which PDF, whatever-printable, HTML, etc. can be generated I think that's a good idea. But then the question becomes: what is the authoritative version? I get the impression that https://www.debian.org/social_contract is (often?) seen as *the* version. But that page is generated from https://salsa.debian.org/webmaster-team/webwml/-/blob/master/english/social_contract.wml The homepage for wml according to the wml package is https://www.shlomifish.org/open-source/projects/website-meta-language/ which mentions "which is an old offline preprocessor for HTML and XHTML which is sophisticated but quirky and slow" and the linked GitHub repo has the following in its about section: "An old offline HTML preprocessor (which can be used for static site generation), written in Perl and C that is still maintained for legacy reasons, but probably not recommended for new sites." Given that, is it wise to have the WML version as the authoritative one? Pandoc supports various input formats, but I didn't see WML. It does support DocBook and Joost did provide a patch which contains a DocBook version of the Social Contract (converted from the WML version btw) OTOH, it feels like I'm WAY overthinking this ;-P Cheers, Diederik
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.