Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > 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:
Yes, you have interpreted my argument correctly. And you are much more knowledgable about the abilities of debiandoc-sgml. And the points you bring up in its defense seem to me to be reasonable ones. I guess, for me, it comes down to this: I'll learn DocBook. It's a de-facto standard, it's fairly general-purpose, it's well supported and learning it will be applicable beyond Debian. I won't learn debiandoc-sgml. It's application is so ridiculously limited, I wouldn't ever be able to justify the outlay in time. My entire reaction when Ian first introduced it was to smack my head and say, "Why?" since then it was a nigh-gratuitous divergence from linuxdoc, which was already a fork from the qwertz DTD. Furthermore, based on statements Ian made at the time of its introduction, it's big benefit was that it gave better postscript output. Of course, to this end, it uses lout, which, when I was working on the early days of the alpha port 18 months ago, had no active maintainer. In fact, glancing at the changelog, I see that it *still* has no active maintainer, and hasn't been touched in more than a year. Any or all of this may have changed, and I may just be being a crank about this---but I know that by using this specialized DTD, Debian has virtually guaranteed I will never update the documents written in it. I suspect I'm not the only one. Mike.
