Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As Osamu noticed, the library packaging guide needs tables which don't exist > in DebianDoc SGML. I'm quite open to switching the rest of the new > maintainers' guide to a more advanced format if it's going to help > making the document content better.
Well, I don't think we should be XOR -- just OR is fine. That is, we can accept DocBook (XML? SGML?) as well as DebianDoc. As for the question, will the content be better in DocBook? No -- not without proper use of tags, education about DocBook, etc. > Besides, that DDP policy is outdated, we've all realized in the meantime how > DebianDoc SGML is not the holy cow it was supposed to be... We shouldn't go too far in the other direction. Debiandoc-SGML has some advantages over DocBook: it's simpler, there are some nice Debian-specific tags (<package>), it styles in a way that maybe we're not in love with but at least we're used to. Again: we should accept both. Josip, maybe you already meant that. Some questions, if we're going to support DocBook: - Support DocBook SGML or DocBook XML or both? - What about a stylesheet so that we can build docs that style in the right way? In some ways, DocBook default article style (DSSSL at least) is kinda gross. Any volunteers? - Can anyone work out tagging standards such as who to mark up packages? - Any volunteers for a tool to convert from DebianDoc to DocBook? I would suggest XSLT stylesheet if possible -- I'm not sure that can work with Debiandoc *SGML* tho... -- ...Adam Di Carlo..<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...<URL:http://www.onshored.com/>
