On 29 Nov 1998, Adam Di Carlo wrote: > > You can extend the docbook DTD with new entities and attributes, it's > quite modular. >
OK, given that what is the purpose of DebianDoc? Only to be a simpler alternative? Your mail just said "why aren't people considering a meta-DTD," with no further explanation. If you explained in some other forum I wouldn't have seen it. > I get a little annoyed when people claim to be intelligently trying to > make decisions about Debian's SGML infrastructure with what seems to > be little knowledge of SGML's capability and the existing standards. > The "lets just hand-roll it, we don't care what anyone else is doing" > attitude *has* to go. > I don't want to make any decisions about Debian's SGML infrastructure; I have other things I do, and it is not my area of expertise. Happy to let someone else make the decision. However, I do want to understand the implications of any such decisions for working on my documentation. e.g., I have considered using DocBook in the past and rejected the idea; should I reconsider given your proposal? I think I can also tell you about the things that would be important for writing (e.g., the tutorial needs texinfo output and indexing). You asked for input, you got it. :-) Havoc
