On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 12:52:46AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote: > Hi, > > the previous installation manual has been partly converted to DocBook XML. > But it did make intensive use of marked sections, which are not valid > in XML. So in fact I guess that SGML processors will be used to convert > it to the desired output formats. In this case, shouldn't it be in the > DocBook SGML format instead? > OTOH I would really love to see this manual converted to XML in order > to be able to use poxml for translations. The marked sections could > be replaced by specific attributes (like arch), but it requires some > extra work. If there are volunteers to do this job, will this solution > be considered, or are there good reasons to keep marked sections?
Well, I saw that they were not valid, according to the DTDs, but I also saw how useful they were in the previous debiandoc manual. So I left them in, thinking somebody could figure out a workaround, maybe a debiandoc-xml that would preprocess the marked sections into real separate xml documents before using the official xml tools to publish. Since debiandoc-sgml handles marked sections, I thought the code must really mostly exist. I understand DocBook SGML is really a kind of theoretical animal for which tools are not available. I can work on it, but I need to know how to attack it. I do think there are good reasons to keep the marked sections. Just considering arches alone, we would end up with 11 different manuals with a good portion of them all repeated, requiring 11 changes whenever something common needed to be fixed. Also x11 translations. -- Debian GNU/Linux Operating System By the People, For the People Chris Tillman (a people instance) toff one at cox dot net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
