"Michael" == Michael Alan Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As to putting something in policy, I'm sceptical---what real effect > will it have? The people need to be told are least likely to pay > attention to it.
I agree. W.R.T. debiandoc-sgml, is there any evidence anywhere that Ardo has done less than a sterling job there? So why inhibit innovation on software that you've moved on from....? > This does bring up one thing, though---can we look at transitioning > away from debiandoc-sgml to something more standard, like docbook? > The backends in the latest sgmltools are supposed to be much more > sophisticated and produce better output than the old linuxdoc-sgml > stuff, and as I remember it, that was your primary reason for > creating debiandoc-sgml. I could consider it, but you'd have to give some actual reasons why it would be a good idea. As I read it, you only gave one: * using a standard DTD is better than using a non-std one [ to which I agree, but see below ] Here's my reasons against it: * Docbook is about 10 times more complex than debiandoc-sgml. It will raise the learning curve for new maintainers *considerably* (it's already pretty high with CVS + SGML at all) * debiandoc-sgml has our own set of tags (like <package) which we can play with and modify and use without worrying about it. Granted, I suppose we *could* add tags to docbook * the limited set of tags presented by debiandoc-sgml is a *benefit* in that we have a greaters structural and presentational consistency I just don't see why we should be using docbook. However, I would like to see a DSSSL stylesheet to translate into docbook, and anther DSSSL for print output as an alternative to the current (perlsasp or whatever) mechanism. I would like to see an XML flavor of debiandoc's DTD also; I don't know what structural changes we might have to make for that.... -- .....Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
