[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
At 17:24 10-22-2000 -0700, David Lawyer wrote:
>My comments: The old manifesto clearly specifies what we require for
>HOWOTOs. Here it is:
Would you like the new manifesto to include a part about docbook and linuxdoc?
>If the Manifesto is going to go into the reasons why we use certain
>source formats, this needs to be kept very brief IMO. We must not
>only consider what is best for readers but what is easy for authors
>including ones not familiar with a markup language. What is proposed
>only considers the needs of the readers.
Please add a verbatim copy of the docbook and linuxdoc paragraph to the new
>Wouldn't it be simpler to say that we would like our docs to be
>accessible to a wide audience including people who use old hardware or
>are vision impaired. Many people erroneously think that blind people
>can't see at all, but many of them are only partially blind.
You're right (there are some of them in my LUG) - go ahead and fix the
> * Free documentation will lose support and become less available
>What does this have to do with format?
Nothing. Just drop it.
> * Free documentation will not be easily modifiable or extensible
>This depends on the license and also on the format but people who read
>the manifesto will not understand the implications.
It also depends on the format - that's why a PDF only document is not
> * Free documentation will not be available in a human readable
> format, as a "transparent" source
>Again, many will not grasp the implications.
Maybe we should explain that?
> * Documentation will not be freely distributable in a legally
> unrestricted way
>What has this to do with format?
Nothing. Just move it to the license part.
>The info system is complicated to use and I don't like it (but am
>forced to use in sometimes). I'm not sure we need to convert into it.
I don't really like it either, it is just an example of low res format
suited for old hardware, even if lynx or w3m do support html on these machines
>The problem here is that it's a lot of extra effort for the authors to
>add metadata. I think for most HOWTOs it would be much more
>productive to improve their content and quality. Since the sgmls
>we use allows one to create new tags, I don't think there is any need
>to mention this.
The metadata should be added by a separate person to help the authors.
>I think that the manifesto (or some other "official" document) should
>mention what formats we accept. This section shouldn't be called
>"recommendations" but "requirements" or "conventions". Otherwise
>people will think that we accept any format and not bother to read it.
>Here's what I would say (in part):
>We distribute LDP documentation in various formats such as HTML,
>Postscript, and plain text. Authors write in a format which can be
>converted (by computer) to these formats (and more). Formats which
>can be so converted include: DocBook or LinuxDoc (both are
>SGML languages). HOWTOs should be in one of these formats. If you
>use DocBook check first to see which versions we accept.
>You may see what these sgml formats look like by downloading a HOWTO
>(in sgml) from an LDP site. We may accept a HOWTO in just plain text
>if we can find someone to manually convert it to DocBook, etc.
Please add some explainations about transparent format and low res/hi res,
ie readable on a screen and readable on a printout.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com