Terry Dawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote: > > > Just one more package we would be dependent upon. Further, do we want > > to let a browser "decide" how things should look? I don't think so. > > Just a small point, but the whole idea of SGML is that it deals with the > structure of a document and does not deal with presentation issues at all. > So, yes, if you're writing in SGML you do want the tools to decide how > things should look. Whether you want to trust Lynx/Netscape or some other > tool to do it is another matter.
The point here was that we should get the text output from an SGML source via HTML and a browser. Then the way the text output would look like would be dependent on the way the browser interprets the HTML source. That's not the way to go in my opinion. > > > we are missing two very important things: images and tables, (plus set of > > > books, glossary, ...) > > > > Well, why don't we start working on these then? Can I see some > > proposal if you've ideas for them? > > Unless there is a good reason not to, why not use the graphic and > *table elements as defined in the DocBook DTD? The thing that really This is good suggestion. It also fits in some other thoughts. > bothers me about these sort of SGML processing discussions (I've just > survived one on the LDP list) is that the concensus always ends up > that "We have special requirements and it is easier to modify our > unique set of processing tools than a standard one". > > The SGML-tools (aka LDP tools) people look like they are going to > now abandon SGML altogether and go with XML. We also want to provide the documentation writers a stable platform to write on instead of a moving target which changes every six months or so. For now we keep maintaining debiandoc-sgml, but I have an open mind on moving to DocBook accompanied by an as smooth as possible migration path. As stated before on this list: the most important thing is that the documentation gets written. Moving to another DTD can always be very well supported by tools and thereby is much less important. I read an announcement yesterday that SGML-Tools would start changing over to using the DocBook DTD somewhere later this year. Let's follow their findings. > > What's wrong with the current output? I think the manuals look good. > > It's a matter of personal preference I guess, but I think the DebianDoc > output looks a bit clunky and unprofessional, but that is an issue > completely unrelated to the DTD, and everthing to do with being able > to customise the output style. I agree there's room for improvement, but that's indeed a question of "adjusting" the output generators. > Terry Thanks, Ardo -- Ardo van Rangelrooij home email: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] home page: http://www.tip.nl/users/ardo.van.rangelrooij PGP fp: 3B 1F 21 72 00 5C 3A 73 7F 72 DF D9 90 78 47 F9 -- E-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble? E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
