[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: DocBook Guidelines
I honestly can't answer that. Part of me says yes but on the other hand
all of our current documentation
is in 3.0/3.1 format and there are changes to 4.0 I would assume that
could make this transistion difficult.
What I do know is that we only want 1 version of the DTD we accept.
David Merrill wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2000, Mark Komarinski wrote:
> > Poet/Joshua Drake wrote:
> > >
> > Uhm...H-H says we accept GIF, but acknowledge patent disputes.
> > And .EPS won't show up in web or htmldoc versions:
> > For images use [JPG or GIF] and EPS
> > > 3. No short tags. No exceptions.
> > > 4. No deprecated tags.
> > Sounds fair. How depreciated do we want to go? <graphic> isn't being taken
> > out until 5.0, and 4.0 is barely off and running, but there are better reasons
> > than depreciation to use <mediaobject>.
> Wouldn't the project, and DocBook in general, be best served by supporting the
> most current recommended usage of the language? Especially for new submissions?
> David Merrill
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org
<COMPANY>CommandPrompt - http://www.commandprompt.com </COMPANY>
<PROJECT>OpenDocs, LLC. - http://www.opendocs.org </PROJECT>
<PROJECT>LinuxPorts - http://www.linuxports.com </PROJECT>
<WEBMASTER>LDP - http://www.linuxdoc.org </WEBMASTER>
Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology,"
start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org