draft notice text

[Mark Johnson]

Karsten Wade wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-09-18 at 05:24, Dave Pawson wrote:
> 
> 
>>What  rationale is there for remaining with the SGML toolchain?
> 
> However, and here is the double-good news:  because of all the good work
> we are doing here proving the capabilities and readiness of the latest
> DocBook using XML, 


> those of us who are writing new guides (i.e., no
> legacy SGML) _and_ who are not being translated 

FWIW, this includes me. I *only* write in XML.

> will get to choose to
> use a parallel XML toolchain based on the FDP tools for the Enterprise
> Linux 4 release ... well, probably nearly exactly the FDP tools with our
> XSL 

This is the hope, anyway. FDP certainly provides an excellent test 
case for a given toolchain.

However, we may end up with something entirely different, like a 
java-based system.

We may, e.g., decide that Saxon is more appropriate as an XSLT 
processor (due to its docbook & other extensions), and that FOP is 
adequate for our FO --> PDF needs, instead of having to revert to 
the tried & true jade/DSSSL combo for PDF output. XSLT and XSL-FO 
are simply easier to deal with than is DSSSL.

At any rate, we won't be committing to any new toolchain (and 
changing all RHEL docs over to XML) until after RHEL4 is released.

My $0.02,
Mark

> That means I'm writing 100% in XML, as soon as I take the few hours to
> convert my existing work from SGML. :-)
> 
> - Karsten


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Johnson                     <mjohnson at redhat.com>
OS Product Documentation
Engineering, Red Hat, Inc.       <http://www.redhat.com>
Tel: 919.754.4151                Fax: 919.754.3708
GPG fp: DBEA FA3C C46A 70B5 F120  568B 89D5 4F61 C07D E242