Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> John R. Daily <> wrote
>>>For DocBook, I think that time has come.
>>>
> ...
>>think it borders on self-evident that DocBook needs significant
>>refactoring.)
>>
> No, it is not self-evident.
Did you actually read
http://norman.walsh.name/2003/05/21/docbook
and
http://norman.walsh.name/2003/05/29/moredocbook
?
> DocBook needs documentation (TDG is only a
> first attempt), needs training (any MS-Word trainer knows how it is
> difficult to make people use styles, not presentation marks), needs
> software (tools are stilll much too buggy, specially jadetex and
> passivetex),
All those are indeed areas where improvement is desirable. But I don't
see how that contradicts Norm's initiative.
> but it does not need yet another rewriting
What would be bad about something good? :)
Seriously though, the point is to improve DocBook. I think that that's a
very worthy effort.
> that will
> render obsolete all the training already performed (not to mention
> documents).
http://norman.walsh.name/2003/05/21/docbook
"I think one of the goals should be that most valid DocBook documents
can be transformed into new valid V.next documents with XSLT."
> My personal opinion on Docbook is that too much time is spent on the
> standard and not enough on the surrounding environment (docs, tools).
Both areas (would) benefit from your support :)
Tobi
--
http://www.pinkjuice.com/
