about accepted formats (Re: Simplified DocBook)

[Taketoshi Sano <sano@debian.org>]

Hi.

In <39F675B8.FB7E9520@rebel.net.au>,  on Wed, 25 Oct 2000 15:25:04 +0930,
 David Lloyd <lloy0076@rebel.net.au> wrote:

> > I think that what we ask people to use should be far simpler than
> > HTML.
> 
> Then they should use text, or a WYSIWYG/WYSIWYM editor.

Well, maybe.

> The reasons for having people create a validatable (not just well
> formed) document to submit to any publisher such as the LDP should go
> without saying. Whilst I do not intend to use LinuxDoc myself I am
> satisfied that it is a reasonable, easy-to-use and not too difficult to
> support DTD or other entity. Other people may choose to use DocBook SGML
> or XML for their own purposes; I use it in my professional work and find
> it natural to use when writing or submitting my "voluntary" documents.

I've maintain the tool for LinuxDoc, but I don't object that 
the LDP prefers the DocBook (maybe XML in future) DTD.

The reason I work on the LinuxDoc is just that it is required currently
since the many documents use it yet, and there are authors who used to it
and who wish to use it.

I think that the most important thing in the documents is the contents.
So if the information in it is useful, then I'd like to read it if it
is provided only in text or html.

I don't want to have some proprietary binary formatted "documents"
on my Linux system if I can't read it using free tools, but text and
html is not so bad for me.

> Conducting a debate centered around "LinuxDoc allows you to use [insert
> something here] whereas DocBook (because it's an XML or SGML DTD) does
> not" doesn't really prove anything given that LinuxDoc and DocBook are
> totally different items and cannot be so easily compared. The question
> we should address is "what benefits do LinuxDoc and DocBook display;
> given these sets of benefits is it worth supporting one, both or trying
> to find another alternative...."

For me,

  LinuxDoc: Old format, which can produce html/text/TeX(dvi,PS,PDF) etc.
            Mainly created for easy conversion to various output,
	    because the readers of LDP wish to have documents in their
            prefered formats and the preference of them varies.
            Now only maintained for backward compatibility and bug fixes.

    pros: DTD will not change anymore, so no need to learn about DTD
          if you already know it.
          for LDP, to support this reduces the cost to convert many docs
          which currently use this DTD into newer DTD, and reduces the 
          cost to learn the new DTD from the authors who knows this.
	  
    cons: limited ability in the DTD itself and the design of the tool.
	  no aggressive development, just bug-fixes (plus some i18n).

> Arguing about the form of these documents is getting tiresome. Putting
> it bluntly, if someone produces a very good document but it's formatted
> in text, Word or some other strange format then someone may find the
> time to translate it into something else (LinuxDoc, DocBook XML or
> whatever).

Agreed, and hope there are enough such volunteer.

-- 
  Taketoshi Sano: <sano@debian.org>,<sano@debian.or.jp>,<kgh12351@nifty.ne.jp>


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