Re: I'm trying to set up docbook-tools...

[Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>]

/ "Eric S. Raymond" <esr@thyrsus.com> was heard to say:
| Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>:
| > Second, I'm tired of your whining about the theology and jargon. I'm
| > sorry if TDG didn't answer your questions, I'll try to do better next
| > time (although I still think it's an authors prerogative to decide
| > what is and what is not in scope), but I don't think it's either
| > theological or jargon-filled.
| 
| In this respect (if not in others), you and the other core DocBook
| people who share this belief are still out to lunch.  And that's sad,
| because it seriously hinders the deployment of your good work.

Moments after sending this message, I regretted making the assertion
that it wasn't jargon-filled. That's nonsense and I knew better.  (I
really don't think it's theological, but if you do, I won't argue the
point any further.)

There's a definite tension when it comes to vocabulary and it bites
very deeply in SGML, possibly because I'm familiar with it, although
my intuition is that it bites deeply in SGML in part because it's
worse in SGML than in many other jargons. 8879 was written by a lawyer
after all :-)

As I expressed earlier, perhaps badly: using the precise 8879
terminology (which I don't claim to have done, in the interest of
trying to fight this exact problem, even if you think I failed) is a
way of describing things in a precise, technically unabiguous way.
Alas, it comes at the expense of the poor reader who could care less
about the distinction between a "tag" and a "generic identifier".  The
trouble is that using loose, informal terms eventually leads to
confusion in those areas where it really makes a difference.

Maybe I got the balance wrong. I could have done better.

| > It seems to me that the bulk of your ranting boils down to:
| > 
| > "The tools one needs to format a DocBook document and get HTML or
| > print output are insufficiently documented and too hard to install and
| > use."
| 
| Nope, see above.

Above only asserts that I'm out to lunch, it doesn't actually describe
any specific problem that I might be able, even anxious, to help you
with.

|  The fact that SGML initiates can't see how
| impenetrable their sacred texts are is a larger problem than the lack
| of documentation for specific tools -- because it means that said
| documentation is unlikely to get written or reviewed by exactly those
| who ought to be best qualified to do it.

I don't think that follows. I'd love to expand on the publishing
sections of TDG to provide practical answers to practical problems in
more detail.  And now that the tool sets are becoming more mature, I
think there's a good chance I'll be able to do that. I'd still like to
see a tool set that ran on both NT and Linux, but that may not yet be
practical.

And I'll happily review anything written on the subject if I'm asked.

| "Floggings will continue until morale improves." :-) No, in fact, I'm
| not flogging you for moving too slowly.  I'm flogging you for an
| apparent inability to understand "motion" at all.  I'll stop when you
| either clue in or my arm gets tired.

Your polite, reasoned demeanor invariably improves my morale.
Thank you, sir! May I have another, sir!

| So why didn't *you* figure one out this out two years ago?  Why does 
| it take an outsider, jumping up and down and screaming, to point out
| the obvious?

It must be wonderful to always have all the right ideas at the right
time. Alas, I have not your gift in that regard.

Oh, and by the way, while it may take an outsider, it does not take an
outsider jumping up and down and screaming. That has very nearly
driven me to stop reading your posts.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just
http://nwalsh.com/            | is. And we dance to its music.--Richard
                              | Dawkins