On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 11:36:18AM -0600, Adam DiCarlo wrote: > > 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.
I say both should be accepted. We haven't decided it but we
should, once and for all, state so clearly.
>
> As for the question, will the content be better in DocBook? No -- not
> without proper use of tags, education about DocBook, etc.
Agreed. However, there is currently a lot more information on
DocBook that there was before. Education should not be an issue.
>
> > Besides, that DDP policy is outdated, we've all realized in the meantime how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.
<package> Does not do, unfortunately, nothing. It could link to
packages.debian.org, or point to /usr/share/doc/package, but the tag
itself just makes it TT. AFAIK
In any case some specific tags could be made and a new Docbook DTD
created for the DDP.
> Again: we should accept both. Josip, maybe you already meant that.
Again: yes.
>
> Some questions, if we're going to support DocBook:
>
> - Support DocBook SGML or DocBook XML or both?
> - Can anyone work out tagging standards such as who to mark up
> packages?
>
s/who/how?
IMHO packages should be linked to the packages' pages. That is a
<package>XX</package> should be come a link to packages.debian.org/XX (or
a local link to /usr/share/doc/XX)
> - 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...
It's already done, as pointed out. I will add this to the DDP
policy draft.
Javi
pgpysKk2vRxuP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
