[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Source files of guides
>But what concerns me is that we have now "lost" the SGML for a guide which
>formerly had it. But maybe I'm getting ahead of myself here; we're really
>still trying to find out where it went. Maybe it's just not linked? Or
>maybe Gerhard just hasn't sent it to us?
The Securing and Optimizing guide is not, nor has it ever been SGML. It is
written in MS Word.
>documents are only available in opaque formats. So whether or not we
>"require" SGML, I am personally going to keep on asking for it.
Great. But what does this have to do with SGML source for documents that
never had it? It would take entirely too much time and energy to develop
the SGML source for this guide.
I wish it was in DocBook as well, but it will be some time; if ever for
>David C. Merrill, Ph.D.
>Linux Documentation Project
>Collection Editor & Coordinator
<COMPANY>CommandPrompt - http://www.commandprompt.com </COMPANY>
<PROJECT>OpenDocs, LLC. - http://www.opendocs.org </PROJECT>
<PROJECT>LinuxPorts - http://www.linuxports.com </PROJECT>
<WEBMASTER>LDP - http://www.linuxdoc.org </WEBMASTER>
Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology,"
start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org