forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From R Parker <>
Subject Re: docbook; user question
Date Wed, 08 Oct 2003 15:55:19 GMT

Thanks for the reply. I'm working my way through your
suggestions. Meanwhile: 

> If your site is predominantly generated from
> Docbook, then Forrest
> doesn't add much value.  IMO we should remove the
> docbook2document.xsl to
> avoid misleading people such as yourself.

Perhaps, "This makes Forrest great for project
documentation (notably software projects), intranets
and home pages." is a problematic claim. I suspect if
Forrest doesn't support Docbook, then it's
inappropriate for software documentation. At that
point in the design you'd probably do well to rid
yourselves from the burdens of supporting Docbook. 

IMO, website construction is justified by the content.
I think we could argue that Docbook is to
documentation what Microsoft is to the PC world--only
in the sense of its proliferation.

If you eliminate Docbook from the Forrest scope, then
what's the justification for Forrest? Supporting
multitple output formats like PDF with Apache FOP so
we can generate PDF files of our Welcome pages doesn't
seem very interesting.

I have not put much thought into the value of Forrest
but that summarizes my thoughts on the issue of
supporting Docbook.


> --Jeff
> PS: I think it's 'acoustics', not 'accoustics'.

Ah, your shoelaces are untied. :)

Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search

View raw message