On May 17, 7:11pm, Taketoshi Sano wrote: > Subject: Re: experimental release of linuxdoc-tools > at "16 May 2000 21:51:31 -0400", > Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Taketoshi Sano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > I have put a source archive of modified sgml-tools 1.0.9 > > > with the name of linuxdoc-tools. > > > > Why? Seems like this would cause confusion at this point.. > > Because I have heard that current sgml-tools v1 & v2 do > cause the confusion among users / writers in LDP. > > I think "sgml-tools" should mean the work provided by Cees, > and it has been v2, the tools for DocBook.
Yes, but I would agree that it's still confusing to many users. > I am afraid that if I release the new "sgml-tools" 1.0.10, > or newer version, then users / writers will get into more > confusion. The bug-fixed version of sgml-tools v1, will > keep to be the tools for LinuxDoc DTD, so Linuxdoc-Tools > are better name for it to avoid the confusion, I think. > > But if you, Adam, or Cees, advise me to use the name of > "SGML-Tools-V1", then I will follow you. > Please let me know how I should do. I'd like to see if we can get linuxdoc support into the v2 sgml-tools packages. We'd need to provide the DTD and a set of DSSSL stylesheets along with perhaps a couple of catalog files. I don't know if there's anything else (at this point) that would be needed beyond those components. Do you think we should go that route? That way we have 1 toolset (jade/openjade), with support for both DTDs (DocBook and Linuxdoc). regards, -- Greg Ferguson - s/w engr / mtlhd | [EMAIL PROTECTED] SGI Tech Pubs - http://techpubs.sgi.com | Linux Doc Project - http://www.linuxdoc.org |
