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

Re: Bug#139058: RFP: w3-dtd-xhtml -- XHTML 1.1: Module-based Extensible HyperText Markup Language 1.1 DTD

Mark Johnson <mrj@debian.org> writes:

> > Please just instruct me what you want.  
> Nothing more for now. You gave all the needed info. BTW, I know
> exactly how you feel.
> You can safely tune out of the conversation now, Adam. (Any replies
> please remove aph@debian.org and/or adam@onshore-devel.com from the cc
> list.) 

Thanks for your consideration, Mark.  One comment on what you write

> I think Silvestre has a good idea asking that the docs be included
> with the package. The larger implication being that any w3 dtd package
> should come with the corresponding docs. Of course, such a plan would
> necessitate a rethinking of the doc-html-w3 package, which is already
> quite large at 45 MB installed size. Yikes! (see Bug#116098)

I think it's better for the maintainers and better for the quality of
Debian that packages that are collections of stuff be limited in scope
and size.  No one can be an expert in all this stuff.  I think
'doc-html-w3' is a prime example of a package that ought to be split
up, at least somewhat.

> As the doc-html-w3 maintainer Francesco Lovergine pointed out in a
> reply to the above bug report, half of this (22MB) comes from the
> MathML docs. So maybe MathML would be an exception to the idea that
> w3-dtd-mathml (my package) include the docs. IMO, it wouldn't fair to
> force 22MB of MathML docs on someone who only wishes to use mathml
> e.g. within docbook.

I would suggest a w3-dtd-mathml-doc pkg or perhaps w3-doc-mathml ?

> The doc-w3-html package would then only have to contain docs for the
> stuff in sgml-data. Hmmm, but then the name doc-html-w3 is misleading. 

Well, not necessarily.  I think it makes sense to keep it named as it
is.  It's indicating where the documentation is coming from.

In unrelated new, this is making me think that sgml-data ought to
recommend doc-html-w3 or seomthing.

> I appear to be converging on the idea of having an sgml-data-doc (or
> similar) package, and putting the rest of the w3 docs in with the
> corresponding dtd packages. Seems downright sensible. Ugh. Major
> migration ahead.
> Comments, anyone?

Well, you're just talking about renaming doc-html-w3 right?

If you're talking about sgml-data-doc, that would almost need to be
maintained by me, since I control what's included in sgml-data or not.
And sgml-data includes not just stuff from w3, but also ISO docs (not
always available DFSG-free) as well as entities and such from vendors
(which sometimes have docs and sometimes don't).

Another alternative, throwing out ideas here, is that sgml-data-doc
pkg depends on doc-html-w3 as well as includes docs for non-w3 stuff.

...Adam Di Carlo..<adam@onshore-devel.com>...<URL:http://www.onshored.com/>

Reply to: