On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 7:03 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> I took a look. Its very docbooky looking (I like the html and html as > one page rendorings). > Yes. > There must be pointers comparing daisy to docbook and why daisy to docbook? > Not on a formal basis - here's an old blog post talking about Daisy in a techdoc environment: http://blogs.sun.com/coolstuff/entry/daisy_wysiwyg_wiki_for_pdf If the underlying need is to have a Docbook export (like when going to a paper publisher), I guess for a specific setup creating a custom Books publishing pipeline that does this is very feasible. Daisy stores its textual content in a semantically/structurally clean form of HTML. > > > Important in your consideration would be the requirement of offline > > authoring. > > > > Why? Because can only author when daisy server running? > Yes, it's a webapp through which you author. A nice one, if I may say, it's tested and production-quality stuff which has been going for a long time now, and some of our customers have been creating 700+ pages publications with it. Consider it being a Confluence without the UI/Atlassian fanciness, slightly more complex (but also more flexible), however pretty stable and with a solid techdoc legacy. We're quite busy but I could look if we could free up some time to support a trial if that's what the community wants. However, I think Todd/Cloudera are sold on Confluence already - and there's already some setup on the ASF side of things to export Confluence content to static HTML that can be SVN-versioned for the ASF website. Speaking of which, with my ASF Member hat on: we should have some formal vetting on doc contributions as well - with Daisy for Cocoon we had a simple tick box upon registration to declare a contributor had the legal rights to actually contribute under the ASF license terms. If the idea is to open up doc contributions, of course. Steven. -- Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/ Open Source Content Applications Makers of Kauri, Daisy CMS and Lily
