cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mark Washeim" <esa...@canuck.com>
Subject Re: Documentation grammars, was:[Re: [RT] latest wonderings around W3C land and surroundings]
Date Sat, 01 Apr 2000 21:06:41 GMT
Pierpaolo,

Though I think you're right to attempt to inject a bit of levity, you are
missing one point both Norm and Stefano are 'circling' around.

Namely, that it is important for those collectively working on the
documentation for the xml.apache projects (and other apache projects, for
that matter) to spare themselves future 'reconcilliation' problems (that is,
making the documentation 'similar' across projects).

I KNOW this is a problem. That's why most corporation, including mine,
impose a standard (I'm assuming you follow javadoc conventions for the
convienience and consistancy it offers). DocBook is merely a useful,
well-constructed DTD which could serve as a reference for those who must
produce documentation. No need for everyone to use it, of course and as you
point out. As long as YOU produce the xsl to transform it (or anyone else
that choses another DTD).

Personally, I think it would be great if DocBook were used at the apache sf.
It would resolve consitancy problems with a reasonable, single point of
reference for all documentation producers.

As for my part, if you think a discussion of docbook is a waste of time, you
should try getting out of the perpetual CALS table model discussion I've
been working through for the last n years....

Respectfully and with thanks to Norm, Mike and Stefano for wrangling this
out,
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Pierpaolo Fumagalli <pier@apache.org>
To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org <cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org>
Date: 01 April 2000 21:33
Subject: Re: Documentation grammars, was:[Re: [RT] latest wonderings around
W3C land and surroundings]


>Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>>
>> The whole thing is clearly getting too religious to be resolved: you
>> like one DTD, I like another.
>>
>> Well, this arguing is pointless.
>
>Ohhh..... Finally something _SERIOUS_ said here....
>
>> But don't worry, we will _NOT_ impose any DTD on this project or to any
>> other. How could we possibly do that?
>
>And also because if you do, I know where you live :) :) :)
>A nice kick in 'da ass will be surely deserved :) :) :)
>
>> Of course, we'll vote to choose one for our docs and we'll write the
>> skins for it.
>
>And if DocBook will be voted to be _THE_ DTD, I'll have to pass all docs
>in Cocoon before committing them to the CVS to convert them from MY DTD
>to yours.... Is this THAT HARD to do????
>
>> But we will _NEVER_ limit the ability to Cocoon/stylebook
>> to that single DTD and we are committed to include in the distribution
>> all the skins/DTD that the different projects can produce.
>> There are no reasons to do otherwise.
>
>That's for sure :) So, you produce the stuff for DocBook, and I produce
>the stuff for my DTDs....
>
>> I believe a more powerful DTD is needed, you don't. That's it.
>> It's the same old "VI vs. Emacs" tune and doesn't help anyone because
>> there's room for both.
>
>In fact I use UltraEdit... And screw both religions :)
>
> Pier (and the first person who will reopen this discussion
>              will be mailbombed, by me! :)
>--
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>pier: stable structure erected over water to allow docking of seacraft
><mailto:pier@betaversion.org>      <http://www.betaversion.org/~pier/>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>


Mime
View raw message