Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Lets separate, if we can, the DTD from the processing structure. > There's no reason why we could not build a DSSSL file make nice PS, > PDF, TeX, RTF from the Debiandoc DTD. In fact, it's my project for > a rainy day...
I intended my observation as more regarding the historical context of debiandoc-sgml's creation---Ian emphasized its superior PS output via lout. Obviously debiandoc-sgml has been progressing since I last looked at it, so it's obvious even to me that some of my comments are off-base. > I can understand why you turn your nose up at the Debiandoc DTD, but > for every one of you, if we went to Docbook, we'd have 10 people > complaining that our documentation system is too complex. I understand, and I really hope no one thought I was undertaking this simply as a gratuitous-beat-up-on-debiandoc-sgml, though, given my lack of attention to what was going on with it, it probably came out that way---I didn't realize it was actively maintained, I didn't realize that it was being actively extended, etc. Mea culpa. If I write documentation for Debian, it'll be in DocBook---and maybe my first project should be a nice introduction---but it seems like debiandoc-sgml is not the evolutionary dead end I had thought it to be. Cheers, Mike.
