On Friday 04 September 2009 15:55, Clayton wrote:
One of the big reasons we moved/pushed towards using the Wiki for
docs is.. to try and get more community involvement... basically
lowering the entry barrier to editing the docs. In at least some
documents, this has worked quite well. The
ok, I've understood that it has not been a technical reason to give the
wiki a try but community involvement. It's good to keep this in mind.
That is the one thing I really find important as well. The more
community involvement we have, the better. :-)
But with the User Guides - did you
BTW, it's consistent... (w/o an 'a').
What flavor of DocBook is OOo planning to use: 4.1.2 (what Writer has,
so to speak), 4.5 the final version with a normative DTD, or the
two-year old 5.0 (w/o a normative DTD, or a complete DTD, BTW)?
After that choice is made, any DocBook document still
Nino Novak wrote:
Clayton wrote:
One of the big reasons we moved/pushed towards using the Wiki for
docs is.. to try and get more community involvement...
The example I have is the DevGuide. ... With this doc in the
Wiki, it is subject to a steady stream of edits by developers and
community
Gary Schnabl wrote:
If anybody wants a DocBook 4.5 or DocBook 5.x templates, I could do a
Structured FrameMaker implementation of them as I already produced the
FrameMaker EDD files from the DocBook 4.5 and 5.0 DTDs, although Norman
Walsh never completed the DTD for the current DocBook 5.0
Jean Hollis Weber wrote:
Gary Schnabl wrote:
If anybody wants a DocBook 4.5 or DocBook 5.x templates, I could do a
Structured FrameMaker implementation of them as I already produced
the FrameMaker EDD files from the DocBook 4.5 and 5.0 DTDs, although
Norman Walsh never completed the DTD for
On Friday 04 September 2009 13:46, Jean Hollis Weber wrote:
Nino Novak wrote:
A propos inconsistencies: Has there been a thought/discussion to
use DocBook as master for documentation?
I know that OOo is supposed to deal with DocBook files in some way,
but I've never understood how that
I'm not an expert - to be honest I hoped to meet the experts here ;-)
but on the German community mailing list we had a discussion if it
makes sense to use the wiki for documentation at all - as this raises
the problem of double bookkeeping and of converting documents. A
possible solution
If we choose to use some other application that must be installed
separately or some special OOo configuration requiring plugins and user
IDs on certain webservers etc., we will immediately eliminate a segment
of contributors, and the doc workload falls back 100% to a very very
small team of
OOo has very primitive DocBook support. In fact, it uses DocBook 4.1.2
from eons ago. DocBook currently has been at DocBook 5 since the summer
of 2007, I believe.
I have produced DocBook 4.5 and DocBook 5 EDDs for Adobe FrameMaker,
although the DB 5 version is a very small bit incomplete
Hi,
On 09/04/09 15:55, Clayton wrote:
...
If we argue that we can use Writer as a DocBook editor (it is
technically possible to export DocBook from Writer), then why bother
with DocBook? Do the docs right in ODT.
No matter which way we go (Wiki, DocBook, or something else), we will
have
In a perfect world, I'd like to be able to use OOoWriter to author and
edit the docs, save them to webserver (just via save), and be able to
automatically/immediately have them rendered into Webpages (as in the
way the Wiki works). There is not yet a OOo based Wiki :-) It'd be the
best of
12 matches
Mail list logo
