[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: mini-HOWTO on IPMasq+Napster
On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 01:45:00PM -0500, John E. Danner wrote:
> Ok, I've got the HOWTO written, and checked the HOWTO-HOWTO and followed the
> instructions on how to get it into SGML format. I'm pretty sure I did it
> correctly, so I downloaded the SGMLtools v2.0.2, compiled it and what not;
> however, when I run the 'sgmltools' command and try to output my HOWTO to
> html, ps...it isn't formatting correctly (I'm getting some odd errors about
> some tags I used, but I followed the HOWTO-HOWTO to a capital T)...can anyone
> give me some pointers or suggestions. I tried using 'sgmlcheck', but for
> some reason don't seem to have that program???
Perhaps it is now time we finally abandoned the incredibly confusing habit
of referring to whatever SGML DTD we currently happen to be using, as simply
"sgml" -- and use more informative terminology such as "sgml-linuxdoc" and
"sgml-DocBook" to allow writers (and in particular, new authors) to gauge
correctly what DTD tagset they're going to be confronted with.
IMO, names such as "LinuxDoctools" and "DocBooktools" make much more sense
than sgmltools v.1, 2, etc., especially to those of us already used to using
TEItools et al., and juggling with a large catalog(sic) of DTDs to feed to
emacs or whichever other SGML-aware editor we're using.
Just my personal opinion, you understand.
(And yes, I *am* aware of name changes in the past, and the ill-informed
reasons for making them. But I've also always taken violent exception to
the way the LDP has consistently misused the _generic_ term "sgml" to refer
to _specific_ instances of SGML markup.)
No flames please; this is just a very strongly held personal opinion which
I air from time to time in public.
Martin Wheeler - StarTEXT - Glastonbury - BA6 9PH - England
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com