From: Guy Brand <guybrand@chimie.u-strasbg.fr>
To: docbook-tools-discuss@sourceware.cygnus.com
Cc: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@pasteur.fr>,
Adam Di Carlo <adam@onshore.com>
Subject: Re: Docbook tools
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 01:27:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <19990906102649.J4292@chimie.u-strasbg.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <99090522193703.00542@r12m10.cybercable.tm.fr>
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2887 bytes --]
Le 05 Septembre vers 21:30, Eric Bischoff écrivait :
> Hello everybody,
Salut Eric wie gets :))
> I was planning to package all
> this stuff all together - exactly what you have done at Cygnus.
Yes, thanks to Mark Galassi who perfectly reached his aim : providing
Linux RedHat (alike) users with a simple "kit" to produce DocBook.
I was about to package all the stuff for Debian, when Adam Di Carlo
informed me that he already did the job. Seems that we have enough
tools to produce docbookies. What lacks is documentation on
producing docbooks and tweaking them to fit "personnal" needs.
> interest for other users, such as a crash course to DocBook that people report
> to be of quality. Have a look at
> http://www.kde.org/documentation/docbook/index.html .
This course does not contain more information one could already find
in Mark Galassi's "Getting going with DocBook" or FreeBSD's quick doc
on using DocBook in the FreeBSD documentation project. We still need a
good guide, complete and with many examples, not just the basic one of
course. I'm not criticizing what you did at KDE, and as we know each
other, Eric, I think you understand perfectly what I mean. Obvisouly a
DocBook-HOWTO is needed in the LDP.
> There is one main exception, Norman Walsh's stylesheet. I
> may be wrong, but it looks like you have packaged version 0.10, whereas version
> 1.42 is the current one. Is there a reason for that ?
Mark will explains himself :)
> - Why not putting everything in a single tarball / RPM / SRPM ? There could be
> a single ./configure / make / make install sequence.
The RPMs are available with SPECs too, so you can rebuild them from
scratch if needed. Also, the "docware kit" (Mark can I still call it
that way ?) does include several products (jade, jadetex, etc.) which
are separated projects... one just need them to have the whole
stuff working, but why would one want such a big package ? Under
Debian you just need the cygnus-stylesheets, jade, jadetex, docbook,
etc are available as separated packages too. Don't forget there're many
ways of using/producing valid DocBook docs :) It's true that under
RedHat one need to have Mark's work to produce DocBook. I
recently switched to a Debian box where several approaches are
equivalently productive.
> for putting both the 3.0 version and the 3.1 version of the DocBook DTD in
> the RPM archive? It makes the file bigger.
Modularity ? :)
Probably the same answer as "why would one produce HTML docs conform
to DTD version 3.2 and 4.0 ?"
> PS I will forward the reply(ies) to the KDE DocBook team
I was wondering last week why there wasn't a generic DocBook mailing
list where specific questions to the DTD, usage, etc could be sent.
Of course there's still comp.text.sgml :)
BuG
PS : copies to S.Bortzmeyer and A. di Carlo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1999-09-06 1:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1999-09-05 14:13 Eric Bischoff
1999-09-06 1:27 ` Guy Brand [this message]
1999-09-06 21:01 ` Mark Galassi
1999-09-06 21:07 ` Rahul Dave
1999-09-06 21:09 ` Mark Galassi
1999-09-10 0:39 ` Eric Bischoff
1999-09-10 0:30 ` Eric Bischoff
1999-09-06 22:43 ` Jason Molenda
1999-09-07 0:02 ` Derek Simkowiak
1999-09-07 0:16 ` Mark Galassi
1999-09-07 0:44 ` Jochem Huhmann
1999-09-07 1:59 ` Derek Simkowiak
1999-09-06 5:31 Stephane Bortzmeyer
1999-09-06 8:55 ` Mark Galassi
1999-09-06 8:21 David C. Mason
1999-09-06 13:43 ` Eric Bischoff
1999-09-07 7:27 ` David C. Mason
1999-09-10 1:06 ` Eric Bischoff
1999-09-10 7:38 ` David C. Mason
1999-09-10 7:52 ` Edward C. Bailey
2000-12-27 6:36 DocBook tools Clarissa Kao
2000-12-27 6:36 ` Mark Galassi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=19990906102649.J4292@chimie.u-strasbg.fr \
--to=guybrand@chimie.u-strasbg.fr \
--cc=adam@onshore.com \
--cc=bortzmeyer@pasteur.fr \
--cc=docbook-tools-discuss@sourceware.cygnus.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).