Jochem Huhmann wrote: > There is another possible approach: A defined interface instead of a > defined directory layout. We could do both. I have been reading your paper on the topic and it's a very interesting approach. But now we have an opportunity to define common directory names and catalog file names we should take profit of it. The scripts I've been rewriting also try to guess the locations (a third approach), so they don't even need this directory layout either. But I still think a common directory layout would simplify things. The problem is more general and is all what the Linux Standard Base is about. I just want to solve it on the very pecular DocBook side. > So every distribution could use their own > directories and filenames, but the interface stays the same. And some > options to query the actual locations would allow other applications to > find the location of the catalog and such. This would also work for > FreeBSD, Solaris or whatever. Waiting for all Linux distributions and > other Unix-Systems implement a common directory layout might take a long > time, but an interface has just to be ported. You're perfectly right. But as I said before, we can fight on both fronts. > PS: Jorge - if the new list barfs and you find a message of me causing Jorge, did you change the list address ? I'm unable to write to it, this is why I'm polluting docbook-tools-discuss again. Attached the new scripts (with the backends system) with the corresponding man page drafts. If a charity person can convert these drafts into good docbook and send me the result, he would make me gain some precious time. Thanks in advance. Sorry to the non-interested people from this list about the attachement. -- Éric Bischoff - mailto:ebisch@cybercable.tm.fr __________________________________________________ \^o~_. .~. ______ /( __ ) /V\ Toys story \__ \/ ( V // \\ \__| (__=v /( )\ |\___/ ) ^^-^^ \_____( ) Tux Konqui \__=v __________________________________________________ docbook-utils.tgz