In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If DocBook meets all our needs, why bother with the meta-DTD > business? Just use DocBook.
Docbook *doesn't* meet our needs. It does meet the need for tables (CALS model) and figures and all that, more or less. . docbook is way to scary for newbies. . docbook doesn't support texinfo or ASCII or NROFF output. . even then we'd have a lot of work ahead of us to extend docbook, i.e., the <package> tag, etc., etc. Volunteer? > If DocBook doesn't, then we still have to improve DebianDoc even if > we do have the meta-DTD. Well, let's say it wouldn't be as pressing. > So either way there's no point in having a meta-DTD. No? :-) No. -- .....Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
