In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Browsing the DDP home page (http://www.debian.org/~elphick/ddp) I > found some inconsistent links:
> Debian Project Manual -> Debian Project History Fixed in CVS. Fix will propogate to the page eventually. > Debian Packaging HOWTO -> Debian Programmers' Manual I've actually removed this from the top page since it's stalled completely AFAIK. Hopefully, with the recent work being done on a new maintainer's HOWTO, we can just eliminate this. (God, I hope it doesn't stall out like so many others.) I'm going on a war on stalled documentation. More posts to follow. > Moreover, the link "HTML on-line", in the Debian Project History > entry, points to > http://www.debian.org/~elphick/manuals.html/project-history/ch1.html, > but IMO it should actually point to > http://www.debian.org/~elphick/manuals.html/project-history. No comment... I'll let Oliver make this call. > Changing subject: is there any plan to move from the Debiandoc-SGML > markup to DocBook? My understanding is that SGML-tools team did > already the move for version 2.0. If they jumped off a cliff would you? Did I already respond to this? I personally fear that our curve for new documenters is already high enough (make, cvs, SGML in any form), and that using a complex DTD like docbook is going to make things worse. Mind you, I love docbook; I use it all the time for work. But I'm not really bugged that much by Debiandoc-SGML. Since it is specific to debian, I feel it's a more focused DTD which works really well for us (kudos to Ardo). -- .....Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
