On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:43:15AM -0500, Jared Smith wrote:
On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 00:28 +0800, Basil Mohamed Gohar wrote:
> How about rather than looking for an end-all be all solution, we find
> more than one tool that can all be used together.
That brings up a very good point, and one that I didn't articulate well
in my last post:
Have we defined an overall plan for how formal documents will be
written, edited, translated, and published? Is DocBook at the core
still a requirement?
Most certainly, yes. Sorry about that confusion.
In other words, are we going to do the
wiki->DocBook->(Translate?)->XSLT->CMS->Edit->Publish dance?
(wiki->)DocBook->Translate->XSLT->Publish
Edit should be done before translating. :)
Or do we
expect the entire life-cycle of the document to live inside the CMS
system?
IMO, our current purpose is not to replace the current document
life-cycle.
I have no expectations of what the future shall bring us. As I said,
if having a Docs CMS brings in more writers and editors because they
like and prefer to use the CMS, that is a good problem to have.
I reckon we'll always need a high-quality toolchain underneath it all;
currently DocBook XML does that, but DITA or similar could be in our
future.
- Karsten
--
Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener
http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
AD0E0C41