[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Rep:Re: Permission to submit HOWTO
Though I am loathe to feed the troll, I can't let it go unanswered.
Gary Preckshot wrote:
> 1) the LDP is moving vaguely in the direction of
> DocBook 3.1.
No vagueness here Gary. DocBook is the preferred markup of the LDP.
Because it is a volunteer organization, other formats may be accepted.
LinuxDoc will be accepted for historical reasons.
> 2) it would be nice if some volunteers did markup
> for new authors, but there's no roster of
Are you volunteering? How about you start keeping the list.
> 3) LinuxDoc is sorta on its way out, but it's
> still the only DTD sorta featured in the H-H.
> DocBook is mentioned, but not featured.
Hmmm...I think Mark has said several times that he is working on it.
Get over it Gary. Either contribute to the H-H in a non-volatile manner
(i.e. don't tell people to rush out and buy WP/Win or they're big fat
stupidheads) or just shut up about it.
> 4) it's not clear which tags are to be used,
> there's a lot of talk about using SGML in search
> engines, but beyond DSSSL, the LDP doesn't appear
> to be using the capabilities of SGML.
I think the template is quite helpful. What's wrong with it? Have you
sent your suggested changes to the author?
> 5) because of rugged individualists using straight
> text editors to write SGML manually, there's a
> move afoot to use a non-standard version of
> DocBook without many end tags and reduced nesting.
> The effect of this on the virtual search
> capability is unknown. The main reason for this
> move is to avoid typing.
Damn those individualists. Always ruining our good time. Gary, a lot
of people do not want to use WordPerfect for Windows to write their
Howto's. Get over it already! No one is trying to tell you not to use
WP/Win...How about leaving us vi users in peace and stop acting like
we're doing harm to the LDP by using command line tools.
You talk a good game about letting the computer do the heavy lifting,
and yet you won't look around and see the rich assortment of tools that
those damned rugged individualists have been using for years. Are you
ignoring the fact that empty tags can be filled by sgmlnorm? sgmlnorm
is discussed in DocBook: The Definitive Guide (we have all read
DocBook:TDG haven't we?).
TRUE THING #1: There is no move afoot to go to a non-standard DocBook.
You've simply made up a scenario based on one person's intention to try
out minimized SGML.
> 6) there may or may not be a template, it may or
> may not be referenced in the H-H, and it may be in
> DocBook, LinuxDoc, or both.
There are templates for both and you know it, Gary.
> 7) LDP may have a policy, but no one seems to know
> what it is beyond using SGML with some
> indeterminate DTD. Despite blizzards of blather
> about the wonderfulness of SGML, about the only
> thing going is conversion into a few other
Don't like it? Fix it. Blizzards of blather spent complaining about
things does nothing. Do you have a script to perform an intelligent,
context sensitive, search of an SGML archive? Let's talk about it. I'm
sure us folks here would be happy to try it out and help track down the
bugs. Oh, what's that? You haven't written such a script? Hmmmm...
Somebody else is working on it...I don't hear them bitching and moaning
about the job you're doing on whatever it is you're doing. (And what is
it you're doing to help the LDP, Gary?)
> 8) It's not clear which validation and conversion
> tools work with what.
Granted. Have you got a solution? Let's talk about it.
> Beyond that, everything is clear-cut. Welcome to
...And don't feed to trolls. Doh! I guess I already did that.
> Hope this helps.
Sorry, Gary, to be so critical...but I'm getting the distinct impression
that complaining is your primary function around here. What was it you
were working on again?
Joe Cooper <email@example.com>
Affordable Web Caching Proxy Appliances
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com