teastep at shorewall.net
Thu Dec 4 12:54:26 PST 2003
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 11:57, Mike Noyes wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 11:31, Tom Eastep wrote:
> > On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 09:23, Mike Noyes wrote:
> > > Reasons:
> > > * DocBook XML can be transformed into multiple target formats
> > > (e.g. plain text, html, pdf, man pages, etc.)
> > > * Content is separated from presentation.
> > > * Automatic index, xref, contents, etc. generation.
> > > * Output customizable with DocBook XSL Stylesheets
> > > http://docbook.sourceforge.net/release/xsl/current/doc/
> > >
> > > There are probably more benefits I forgot.
> > Ok -- So in your experience, people are willing to contribute to printed
> > documentation but not on-line?
> No. What I'm trying to say is many authors don't want to deal with
> presentation details. They just want to write. DocBook XML and to a
> lesser extent Wikis allow this. The advantage with a Wiki is you don't
> have the CVS learning curve as an additional barrier to contributions.
> I'm probably doing a poor job of advocating my beliefs. :-(
I'm just trying to understand what benefit there would be, if any, for
converting the entire Shorewall document base to DocBook XML and going
through a much steeper learning curve *myself* in order to be able to do
what I've been doing all along. I guess that I would like to see a show
of hands of people who would be willing to contribute to the
documentation if it were in DocBook XML format but who decline to help
maintain the current HTML documentation...
Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool
Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net
Washington USA \ teastep at shorewall.net
More information about the Shorewall-users