I think I could contribute some content. I've written several wiki articles (several of which need updating by now) and have a few more I want to write. If this open book effort materializes, I would gladly shift my focus. For the sake of quality and manageability I think it be good to consider having contributors specialize in specific areas. As far as tools go, the reason I'd side with DocBook is that there is a plethora of processing tools available already, that can generate the book in a myriad of formats (PDF, HTML ..). We could probably do the same with XHTML, but we'd have to write some XSL to do our conversions and we'd all have to stick to an agreed upon format.
chris Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo wrote: > Em Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:56:52 -0300, Hugo Palma > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu: > >> 2. I definitely think that this would have to be something new. Like you >> say, they have different purposes and it should be kept that way. > > +1 > >> 4. Like i suggested before, if we could find somewhere to host a Docbook >> Wiki(http://doc-book.sourceforge.net/homepage/) i think it could work >> quite well. Even without hosting, hand editing Docbook files isn't that >> hard and there are tools to help get the job done. > > What about writing the documentation in pure semantic XHTML and CSS? > This way, we can easily have an online and also a printable version. > This article suggests one way to do that: > http://www.alistapart.com/articles/boom. This way, we don't have to > learn yet another language (DocBook), just reuse what we should know > by now (HTML, CSS). > > And, yes, I'm in! > > Thiago > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- http://thegodcode.net --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
