RE: Rep:Re: Permission to submit HOWTO

[Gregory Leblanc <GLeblanc@cu-portland.edu>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary Preckshot [mailto:garrell@inreach.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2000 9:09 PM
> To: LDP
> Subject: Re: Rep:Re: Permission to submit HOWTO
> 
> guylhemlistes@ifrance.com wrote:
> > 
> 
> > This has to be discussed : both options have pro and
> > cons.
> 
> comme ci, comme ca, there's been an interminable
> discussion of pros and cons. Meanwhile, new
> authors come along, ask to same questions, get the
> same indeterminate answers. What I've heard is

That's pretty much how things work out here.  Until somebody actually DOES
something, they get discussed without end.  Go ahead and do something, then
it will get done that way.

> 1) the LDP is moving vaguely in the direction of
> DocBook 3.1.

Despite the protests of some of our contributors, I think that DocBook is
the road to the future in the LDP.  We've got all of the tools to process
it, and it's not hard to write in.  When there is a work server, then tools
on authors machines won't be an issue.

> 2) it would be nice if some volunteers did markup
> for new authors, but there's no roster of
> volunteers.

That's true, because nobody has decided to maintain such a roster.  If you
decide that such a roster is needed, go ahead and make one.  I'd suggest
talking to Greg Ferg, Joshua Drake, and Deb Richardson.  They're the web
people for the LDP and the OSWG.  You could create a list, and a request for
people interested in markup to contact you, and place the announcement on
both sites, and the list on one or the other.

> 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.

Patience is a virtue.  Mark is doing a terrific job writing the HOWTO-HOWTO,
and DocBook decisions are forthcoming.

> 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.

As Joe said, WRITE THE BLOODY TOOLS.  As of right now, they're not there.  

> 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.

I think that this is an area of friction, but I don't think that we will
ever use a non-standard DTD, because we simply don't have the resources to
support it.  

> 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.

Pay attention.  Read the archives.

> 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
> formats.

Again, write the tools, and we'll use it for more.  Unfortunately, I haven't
been able to hook any of the CS majors I know into taking on a DocBook/SGML
search engine as a semester project.

> 8) It's not clear which validation and conversion
> tools work with what.

Jade works with DocBook.  There are many wrappers available for it.
sgmltools v1 work with LinuxDoc.  They ARE the tool for LinuxDoc.  

I have to say that this was a REALLY disappointing post.  Many times you've
actually had something useful to contribute, this was just a pure flame.  As
my Usenet sig says

Troll, troll, troll your post
Gently down the feed
Merrily, merrily troll along
A life is what you need...

Later,
	Greg


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org