[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Requiring use of DocBook; LinuxDoc
<CITE>If the above by Mark K is correct, I think it needs to be changed back
<CITE>to allowing LinuxDoc for new authors. We want to make it easy for new
<CITE>authors to get started and maintain their documents. One of our major
<CITE>tasks is to get new authors to create new HOWTOs and update outdated
<CITE>ones. To do this we need to make things as simple as possible. In my
<CITE>case, I almost decided not to write a HOWTO due to the requirement of
<CITE>having to use LinuxDoc. But if I were required to use DocBook I might
<CITE>have refused, even if someone was willing to covert my first
<CITE>submission to DocBook.
I disagree completely, we should not change the LinuxDoc rule. DocBook is
not difficult in any way if you use it like LinuxDoc. What I mean is, yes
DocBook can be a total bear if you try and do a much of nifty crap with it
but if you keep it simple it is no more difficult than LinuxDoc. In fact
it is no harder than HTML.
We can not continue to change every item on the opinions of 1
individual. I appreciate the gentlemens frustration but I believe it is
imperative that we continue pushing DocBook, aggressively. All the other
major Documentation (outside of Debian) have switched to DocBook.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org