On 2007-03-06 15:10:42 +, Rocco Rutte wrote:
> What do mean by "schema"? A custom XML dialect that gets translated into
> vanilla DocBook for usual processing?
For instance. But it can be a DocBook extension, e.g. reusing common
elements such as section, para, etc.
--
Vincent Lefèvre <[EMAI
Hi,
* Vincent Lefevre [07-03-03 01:14:44 +0100] wrote:
On 2007-03-02 14:43:18 +, Rocco Rutte wrote:
Well, the manual now makes use of only very few DocBook tags. But the
problem to me seems that neither DocBook nor asciidoc contain those we
need like one for referencing variables (includ
On 2007-03-02 14:43:18 +, Rocco Rutte wrote:
> Well, the manual now makes use of only very few DocBook tags. But the
> problem to me seems that neither DocBook nor asciidoc contain those we
> need like one for referencing variables (including layout,
> cross-reference, auto-indexing, etc). T
Hi,
* Michael(tm) Smith [07-03-01 19:26:36 +0900] wrote:
One reason why not would be to make sure that asciidoc could
actually provide the same level of semantic markup to capture the
semantics of the current manual marked up in DocBook, and to do it
in a way that does not end up making the sou
Brendan Cully <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2007-02-28 08:49 -0800:
> On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 at 09:47, Rocco Rutte wrote:
> > Also, I think the current way of creating it is not very optimal since I
> > (still) consider DocBook a format which is to be generated by machines,
> > not written by hum
On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 at 09:47, Rocco Rutte wrote:
> I think we should rethink or at least put lots of manpower into
> documentation prior to 1.6 since I think 1.6 will (again) be out several
> years before 1.8. At least people seem to stick with stable mutt
> releases for quite some ti
