Am Die, 2003-07-22 um 20.47 schrieb Carol Spears: > I tried to work with simple docbook, docbook, website docbook. > I don't know how recent your gimp download is but this format > is nothing like gimp since gimp-1.0.2. I have to stretch my > imagination so much to make the format fit the gimp.
How so? > I was actually going to try to substitute <corpauthor> for <email>. > Do you know how deeply the email string is nested in any > docbook? Yes, I know but this is for a purpose. You could also put this information (except it's mandantory) in a normal paragraph; however you don't have the type information in the transformation process later in case you could make some use of it -- like print the Author's name (without emailaddress) on the bottom of every page in the document. > trust me and my recent experience, docbook was not written at > all with gimp in mind. It was written with documentation in mind which is exactly what we need; I wouldn't use it as a fileformat for images at all. > for instance, it is obvious to me that the docbook people could not > imagine an app that can take its own screenshots. They didn't design this (because it *IS* overkill) but you can certainly express it using the given hooks. > as much as i love gimp, i wonder if someone got their rent paid > from netscape.com for making that my choice regardless. With > everything else being so sensible in gimp, how come i did not > get a choice that included lynx or the awesome w3m? did you know > w3m renders images on xterms lately? that means it could render > any screenshots gimp gets of itself for its help docs. I cannot imagine how this auto-screenshot feature is supposed to work; but given that one can do anything within the bounds of imagination and knowledge I cannot see why it wouldn't.... > i hate to limit the scope and imagination though, by being so > disgusted with the docbook* set up. I can write up a installation documentation for docbook + compilation of xsltproc in less that 10 comprehensible lines... Remember we're not talking about DocBook/SGML anywork -- that's a disgusting piece of work. > daniel, do you have something to attach to an email? like i did? What did you have in mind? > no this is what happened. i tried to help, asked a few > questions about the logic of the template and what the tags > were *supposed* to mean, and syngin decided it was quicker > and easier to write the documentation without help. The tags are selfexplanatory, the meaning of them is nicely covered (with examples) in the DocBook-book (the "duck book"). We're not *requiring* any of them execept the structural ones (sects, paras, chapters) however: the more the better. > but i would like to be extremely clear about this. i am not going > to waste my time contributing to docbook formated information. > however, if you insist on setting the document writers up with > that terrible template system again, i should be able to use > the information anyways as a thoughtfully written xslt can over > look the bad logic and find information there anyways. So what > ever *you* commit, i can use. See, I already offered to take content in *any* and enrich it using the appropriate tags. Why? Because I'm not an good content writer because I'm not creative enough. I know how to deal with DocBook, XML and XSLT pretty well though. Again: If you want to write, *do it*, send it to me *in any format convenient for you* and I will merge the pieces. And believe me that I won't say it another time because I'm starting to get sick of people who claim wanting to write docs but at the same time complain about the format and thus have a poor excuse why they cannot.... > also, we don't need the tree or the fruit of docbook, it is huge > and the format is not good for gimp. Okay, propose a better (XML-) format, write a DTD (yet better also a Schema) *and* XSLT transformation into at least (X)HTML and PDF and I'll call it a deal. Just tell me how long you need... -- Servus, Daniel
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil