[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Simplified DocBook
From: "jdd" <email@example.com>
> Le mer, 25 oct 2000, David Lloyd a écrit :
> in summary, there is no need of a simplified docbook DTD, there is only
> the need of a simple word processor (I think some peoples are already
> working on this), may be giving as an option a "simple" or an "expert"
Amen, brother. If you want to use a simple set of tags, you can stick to a
small subset of DB and get away with it. However, once we get to the point
of doing more intensive indexing, DB has the additional tags to support it.
Hopefully, we will be doing things *soon* that will outgrow LinuxDoc. I'm
sure planning to.
> It is important not thinking about tags or formats, but in terms of
> tools. the rtf has a really awfull source code, however most word
> can generate it.
> we should, may be, set up a lobby to have ANY word processor support
Excellent point! It is also important to realize that no word processor will
really do much to make sure you use the tags wisely and appropriately. No
word processor can reasonably be expected to know what is a
<programlisting>, what is a <filename>, what is a <command>, or what is a
<note>. Only an intelligent markup author can do those things.
What a word processor, or text editor (e.g., Emacs w/ psgml) can do is make
sure your DB is *valid*. But that is a far cry from making sure your DB is
actually *correct* or *useful*.
Perhaps the best thing we can do to help new markup authors (whether they
are actual HOWTO authors or separate volunteers) be immediately productive
is to list and document (via links to DB: TDG) the minimum set of tags that
a LDP document *must* have. This would be a far smaller set of tags than the
David C. Merrill, Ph.D.
Linux Documentation Project
Collection Editor & Coordinator
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com