[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: experimental release of linuxdoc-tools (based on sgml-tools1.0.9)
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: experimental release of linuxdoc-tools (based on sgml-tools1.0.9)
- From: Taketoshi Sano <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 19:11:21 +0900
- Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, JF@linux.or.jp
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <20000517092453B.email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Resent-date: Wed, 17 May 2000 06:13:01 -0400 (EDT)
- Resent-from: email@example.com
- Resent-message-id: <uPxrz.A.VwF.XCnI5@murphy>
- Resent-sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: Taketoshi Sano <email@example.com>
at "16 May 2000 21:51:31 -0400",
Adam Di Carlo <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Taketoshi Sano <email@example.com> writes:
> > I have put a source archive of modified sgml-tools 1.0.9
> > with the name of linuxdoc-tools.
> Why? Seems like this would cause confusion at this point..
Because I have heard that current sgml-tools v1 & v2 do
cause the confusion among users / writers in LDP.
I think "sgml-tools" should mean the work provided by Cees,
and it has been v2, the tools for DocBook.
I am afraid that if I release the new "sgml-tools" 1.0.10,
or newer version, then users / writers will get into more
confusion. The bug-fixed version of sgml-tools v1, will
keep to be the tools for LinuxDoc DTD, so Linuxdoc-Tools
are better name for it to avoid the confusion, I think.
But if you, Adam, or Cees, advise me to use the name of
"SGML-Tools-V1", then I will follow you.
Please let me know how I should do.
> > But I found that it does not keep backward-compatibility (this
> > is the main reason to maintain the tool for Linuxdoc DTD), and
> > it may break the user's scripts, so I revered their name to
> > original sgmlcheck and sgml2xxxx.
> Better to retain backwards compat., yes.
> > When users will be familiar with the option "--backend / -b" and
> > will not rely on old "sgml2xxx" commands, then these commands
> > can be dropped, I hope.
> I dunno -- retaining backwards compatability should be something we
> do... I don't see the need to change it.
I think if users of Linuxdoc DTD will be familiar with the way
of SGMLTools-2 or SGMLTools-Lite, then it will work for them
when they finally decide to move on the DocBook DTD.
# Maybe minor thing, since people who use DocBook DTD not always
# use the SGMLTools-2, and some prefer to use jade/openjade itself
# via scripts written by themselves. But I wish to express the
# respect for Cees, so I followed the way of SGMLTools-2.
BTW, preveious one has a bug in sgmlcheck, so I replace it
with the newer version.
They can be download from the same location, for the time being.
(source archive, including Debian related staff)
541765 May 17 14:58 linuxdoc-tools_0.3.6-1.tar.gz
(Debian only files)
575 May 17 15:05 linuxdoc-tools_0.3.6-1.dsc
929 May 17 15:05 linuxdoc-tools_0.3.6-1_i386.changes
217906 May 17 15:00 linuxdoc-tools_0.3.6-1_i386.deb
Taketoshi Sano: <firstname.lastname@example.org>,<email@example.com>,<firstname.lastname@example.org>
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org