On Sun, 2004-09-19 at 06:40, Karsten Wade wrote:
> I gather you're speaking for rhel Karsten?
Never let it be said that I speak for RHEL ... :) ... I speak for myself
only, unless otherwise stated.
In which case my question remains, modified.
Are fc documents being processed by 'todays' tools, i.e. xslt
and the current docbook stylesheets?
Because the answer is, what are you talking about?, Fedora is not
using
the SGML toolchain.
You refer to them so regularly Karsten, I'd presumed you were using
them?
My explanation of how a company can get locked into using an aging
system because of the difficulty of change should be explanation
enough. It is a common enough occurrence.
If you don't understand the example, perhaps it's because you haven't
experienced it yet? It's far easier for an individual to change systems
than for a company.
I used DSSSL and SGML for about 12 months, then XML and its
tools
started to appear.
I have seen what I called the 'blue' effect though.
I find it repugnant, and rarely justifiable in terms of cost.
> > That means I'm writing 100% in XML, as soon as I take
the few hours to
> > convert my existing work from SGML. :-)
> Take a look at James Clarks sx. It works.
I will, thanks; that may help with existing SGML guides.
A while back I moved most
of the xfree-86 docs over to XML that way.
Its not 100% automated, but it covers the grunt work,
and leaves workable documents.
Still, we've
been trying to follow XML practices, and in many cases we can get away
with just changing the DOCTYPE.
sx, with the doctype remaining that of the SGML dtd is mostly cleaner,
especially for those making use of the SGML shorthands.
Thereafter, a stylesheet can undo most of the remaining issues
to produce a valid document.
PDF is wanted.
In the fc2 documentation? I haven't seen
any.
Is the current fop in use?
I'm not personally bound to the dead tree method of documenting, but
many of our readers are.
Fedora readers?
--
Regards DaveP.
XSLT&Docbook FAQ
http://www.dpawson.co.uk/xsl