[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Rep:Re: Permission to submit HOWTO
Gary Preckshot wrote:
> Joe Cooper wrote:
> > 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.
> That isn't clear from the H-H. For example,
> LinuxDos is given a whole section, while DocBook
> has nothing.
Please don't use outdated information. This has been false for almost
> > > 2) it would be nice if some volunteers did markup
> > > for new authors, but there's no roster of
> > > volunteers.
> > Are you volunteering? How about you start keeping the list.
> It's something the LDP servers should support.
I think conversion has to happen on a case-by-case basis. I may have
time today, but not next week, to translate a document.
> Emacs runs on all sorts of platforms and can be
> used on Linux. From what at least one poster has
> said, it's very good. LDP is being held back by
> rugged individualists who are determined to write
> in raw SGML no matter what the cost. The cost is
> high. There's nothing they can't do with an
> SGML-aware editor they can't do with vi except
> make it hard for LDP to do other things it wants
> to do. Specifically, by including "inventive"
> constructions, they obfuscate or make it more
> difficult to do search engines.
This is no longer valid as well. vim has SGML coloring, and I was just
clued into sgedit. Both programs are cross-platform and are being
> > 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?).
> DocBook is complicated enough without bringing yet
> another source into the discussion. DocBook is
> intended to facilitate the writing of books and
> other literature, and quoting the Definitive Guide
> completely ignores the fact the LDP uses a subset.
> What's needed is not quotations from a bible, but
> hard facts about what LDP wants to see. For
> example, you're using "article" not "book", you
> don't use "chapter," Mark has just deprecated
> "Graphic," and there are sundry other tags either
> not being used or being used strangely.
D:TDG and other members of the ldp-docbook list have depreciated it.
However, there are better reasons than deprecation to not use it.
D:TDG isn't the easiest book in the world to read, especially when you're
very new to DocBook and are trying to get the tools working. Once you
get past that point, however, it's an invaluable reference.
Carlo Gavazzi IPC | Mark F. Komarinski, RHCE - Compat. Engineer|
176 Second Ave | firstname.lastname@example.org - www.cgipc.com |
Waltham, MA 02451 USA | Ph: 781-266-1138 Fx: 781-290-4810 |
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org