Re: debiandoc-sgml vs. docbook
Adam Di Carlo <apharris@burrito.onshore.com> writes:
> Lets separate, if we can, the DTD from the processing structure.
> There's no reason why we could not build a DSSSL file make nice PS,
> PDF, TeX, RTF from the Debiandoc DTD. In fact, it's my project for
> a rainy day...
I intended my observation as more regarding the historical context of
debiandoc-sgml's creation---Ian emphasized its superior PS output via
lout.
Obviously debiandoc-sgml has been progressing since I last looked at
it, so it's obvious even to me that some of my comments are off-base.
> I can understand why you turn your nose up at the Debiandoc DTD, but
> for every one of you, if we went to Docbook, we'd have 10 people
> complaining that our documentation system is too complex.
I understand, and I really hope no one thought I was undertaking this
simply as a gratuitous-beat-up-on-debiandoc-sgml, though, given my
lack of attention to what was going on with it, it probably came out
that way---I didn't realize it was actively maintained, I didn't
realize that it was being actively extended, etc. Mea culpa.
If I write documentation for Debian, it'll be in DocBook---and maybe
my first project should be a nice introduction---but it seems like
debiandoc-sgml is not the evolutionary dead end I had thought it to
be.
Cheers,
Mike.
Reply to: