On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Matthew Daniels <danielsmw(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with going to straight XML. One of the
"gotcha's" that I found
> with extracting the data from the WIKI is that it does not extract
> warnings, cautions and notes. As such it required manual intervention.
> I am not sure if anyone is willing to move away from the WIKI but Drupal
> has a module that allows native XML and rendering via a stylesheet. I
> am using it with a modified version of Docbook and XSLT. It works great.
Weren't we looking at moving to a new CMS anyway? That definitely sounds
like something to look into.
Hopefully the CMS solution can allow a compromise.
I can work with straight XML and
for most docs that is a good plan.
I think that for a UG though, we can get a lot more feedback if it stays in
Remember that the people using the UG are less likely to be experienced or
even interested in CLI but many already know how to edit in a wiki. We need
the people who use the document to be willing to fix the document. Even if
they never contribute to other documents.
Once we get to Install guides, deployment guides, security guides and other
such stuff, then submitting bugs and editing xml are more reasonable
fedora-docs-list mailing list
Susan Lauber, (RHCX, RHCA, RHCSS)
Lauber System Solutions, Inc.
gpg: 15AC F794 A3D9 64D1 D9CE 4C26 EFC3 11C2 BFA1 0974