Message-Id: <199708061005.MAA27628@en1.engelschall.com>
Subject: Re: Apache Documentation Project !!
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 12:05:36 +0200
From: rse@engelschall.com (Ralf S. Engelschall)
Organization: Engelschall, Germany.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org


In article <57en87k56i.fsf@tees.elsevier.co.uk> you wrote:
> rse@engelschall.com (Ralf S. Engelschall) writes:

> > The used LinuxDOC-DTD is very easy and the used tools can be installed
> > everywhere without problems. So it is as easy to write such SGML docs as it is
> > for the current HTML docs. And there are two big references for this: The
> > Linux Documentation Project and the FreeBSD Documentation Projects.  What
> > works there should also work for us.

> FreeBSD is moving away from LinuxDOC-DTD, it was an interesting idea to make
> a LaTex-like DTD but it's not really the way SGML should be.

Can you explain this in more detail, please.   

When I understand you correctly, the point is the specific DTD, but not the
SGML approach. Ok, there currently is a SGMLTools-DTD in work and even a
LinuxDOC97-DTD. But I think it is not very important which specific DTD we
actually use as long as the language is simple enough. We can convert between
them very easily. The major point is that we can document our stuff easily
_AND_ generate nice output formats for both online viewing and paper printing.

Greetings,
                                       Ralf S. Engelschall
                                       rse@engelschall.com
                                       www.engelschall.com