Luca Barbato wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >>> I'm afraid you are mixing up emails from this thread. I got >>> complaints about how wrongly the PMS is written, e.g. academic paper >>> markup vs plain text, natural language used to specify syntax while a >>> grammar notation like EBNF would be better suited, when I asked >>> people why so few were contributing about this document. >> >> Mmm, and how many people claiming that have suggested specific >> improvements or pointed out specific complaints? > > You got some right here. Feel free to address them. > >> So how, specifically, is PMS "wrongly written", and why hasn't anyone >> who thinks so bothered to provide details? > > - rewrite it as an rfc using a markup among xmlrfc, docbook, guidexml. ... add DITA to the list.
Sorry, but I think it is not fair to make such requests AFTER the document is written. That should've been done when the work started and the council should have made the decision that only a PMS written using GuideXML (or whatever) will be accepted. Lack of specification is not the failure of the ones who did the work. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
