Paul Grosso wrote:
> At 19:01 2002 09 05 +0100, Dave Pawson wrote:
><snip/>
>>
>>?Status quo? Seems to me that's how you operate now (TC that is)
>
>
>
> Yes, that's what I'm suggesting.
Isn't that a little like: Let's discuss this issue by not discussing it;
we'll solve it by sweeping it from under our carpet, across the room and
under the user's carpet.
Facetiousness aside with apologies to Paul:
- it's highly unlikely all tools being used currently can (easily) be
configured in the way you suggest (and it *is* a good idea for tools
that work that way, although it raises the cost of implementing DocBook
even further in any particular context.)
- this approach ignores the possibile (shall I say probable?) benefits
of working through some house cleaning or reorganizing or refactoring of
DocBook that might benefit everyone -- users, Technical Committee,
volunteer support folks, and stylesheet developer / maintainers. Easily
bolting on or unbolting componets on a per application basis is an idea
that has tremendous appeal, at least to me.
On the other hand, this approach *does* circumvent the inevitable
difficulties and complexities of actually deciding what to do, how and
when. This is a key factor when I consider the amount of time and energy
donated to the cause by the DocBook core team. It's a complex
short-term-pain / long-term-gain question.
Regards. ...edN
