On 29 Nov 1998, Adam Di Carlo wrote: > > 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 we feel these things are important, we can't ever use DocBook for debian docs, even if it does have some features DebianDoc lacks. At least, from the perspective of the tutorial: I need the texinfo output, other people will demand ASCII, and frankly DocBook seems awfully scary to me even though I've written some stuff in it. (It's just plain annoying to type <emphasis> instead of <em> for example, and the tags are very API-docs centric, not book-centric). There's no point avoiding one set of disadvantages only to get another. > > 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. > This is potentially bad, not good. Less pressing == doesn't get done as fast. Working on a meta-DTD also takes time away from DebianDoc itself, of course. (Not that it matters, since this is Case Two and I think we both think Case One above applies.) > > So either way there's no point in having a meta-DTD. No? :-) > > No. > I don't see it (not for this reason anyway, it may have other advantages and I certainly don't mean to put down the idea in general). Havoc
