From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gregory Leblanc To: docbook-tools-discuss@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: RE: docbook2* vs db2* Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:36:00 -0000 Message-id: <025836EFF856D411A6660090272811E61D05B8@EMAIL> X-SW-Source: 2000/msg00311.html > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Galassi [ mailto:rosalia@galassi.org ] > Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 3:34 PM > To: docbook-tools-discuss@sourceware.cygnus.com > Subject: Re: docbook2* vs db2* > > David> Thanks - I have been traveling. By the way, here was my > David> reply to the thread which I sent to Mark privately: > > David> I understand the database connection and the idea that you > David> can alias, tab complete, or rename even... but I am > David> thinking of the writer who, may not be very Linux/UNIX > David> savvy who has finally learned DB Tools and now finds that > David> db2html does nothing. Its a small learning curve yes - but > David> it *is* usability.... and that concerns me as I am one of > David> those people who have to answer that question over and over > David> again. > > I kind of agree with you, which is why I plan for it to be an > extremely slow phase-out of the old names. > > I guess that as long as we find packages in remote places that still > directly invoke db2html we will continue to carry the old script > names. I understand this argument, but I figure it's not worthwhile, especially after the total screw up that got Cees into trouble with "SGML tools". I'd rather make it as un-ambiguous as possible, and avoid things like trying to use it to convert a db2 table into html (or using sgmltools to convert MathML into HTML).