[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
>>>>> On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 17:24:24 -0700, David Lawyer <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
DL> The info system is complicated to use and I don't like it (but am
DL> forced to use in sometimes). I'm not sure we need to convert into it.
Since it's an automatica conversion, I don't see why not using
it... But I agree with you that there are bigger priorities before we
start worrying with 'info' and additional formats.
DL> The problem here is that it's a lot of extra effort for the authors to
DL> add metadata. I think for most HOWTOs it would be much more
DL> productive to improve their content and quality. Since the sgmls
DL> we use allows one to create new tags, I don't think there is any need
DL> to mention this.
In fact, if we had correctly marked up documents, we could generate
meta information from it's text. Let's say that it's interesting to
index all commands used in some document, so that we could group
documents that use some common commands in a group. This information
is already there with <command> tags (DocBook).
DL> "recommendations" but "requirements" or "conventions". Otherwise
DL> people will think that we accept any format and not bother to read it.
And if a document is good but not in 'required' format? Are we going
to reject it?
DL> We distribute LDP documentation in various formats such as HTML,
DL> Postscript, and plain text. Authors write in a format which can be
DL> converted (by computer) to these formats (and more). Formats which
DL> can be so converted include: DocBook or LinuxDoc (both are
DL> SGML languages). HOWTOs should be in one of these formats. If you
DL> use DocBook check first to see which versions we accept.
I would add:
(...) check first to see which versions we accept (SGML versions since
3.1 and XML versions since 4.1.2 are known to work).
It would make things easier for people writing documents. :-) I also
suggest that we make a page where we document which versions we accept
and which versions we recommend.
DL> You may see what these sgml formats look like by downloading a HOWTO
DL> (in sgml) from an LDP site. We may accept a HOWTO in just plain text
DL> if we can find someone to manually convert it to DocBook, etc.
IMHO, if we say that we 'require' a format, we can't make
excessions. That's why I asked about what we're going to do with a
good document in a format other than the required...
Maybe the use of 'we strongly suggest' instead of 'require'....
Departamento de Publicações Conectiva S.A.
Publishing Department Conectiva Inc.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org