Subject: Re: 7 points user's memo (was why XML?)
To: =?UTF-8?B?UHJ6ZW15c8WCYXcgUGF3ZcWCY3p5aw==?= <email@example.com>
From: haad <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/02/2007 11:31:27
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Przemysław Pawełczyk wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:25:32 -0400
> "Greg A. Woods" <email@example.com> wrote:
>> If one wants clearly readable, easily maintained, easily parsed,
>> structured documents suitable from everything from business cards to
>> entire books, then Lout really is the best thing I've seen to date
>> (and I've been looking at and for such tools for decades now).
>> HOWEVER, for NetBSD, with a _heavy_ investment already made in mdoc(7)
>> formatted documents, I would be quite happy to stick with that. We
>> already have groff maintained in-tree, and we'll need it for the
>> foreseeable future anyway. It's easy enough to use and it is very
>> well understood too.
> The whole disscusion on NetBSD documentation was branched into
> several topics nearly from the begining. Now I understand we went
> thru following salient point:
> 1) wrong WWW layout
> 2) outdated docu-pages
> 3) weak cooperation with community
> 4) unefficient docu-page creation tools
4) this is your opinion from my point of view they are efficient.
> A lot of steam was released but we are still in the same dock. This way
> we can argue for ages.
> Could someone summerize what convenient tools for XML (present),
> nroff/mdoc (former), and Lout (recommended) formats available for
> NetBSD user willing to write docu-pages? When I write docu-pages I
> think not only strict netBSD documentation but articles, and algorithms
> for doing this'o'that as well.
IMHO NetBSD should stay with Docbook.We don't have enough human power to convert
all our documentation to other more obscure formats like lout.
> My questions are:
> 1) do we take the status quo for granted?
> 2) in what field (4 points above) can we succeed soon?
2,3 if you update netbsd documetation.
> 3) is there any "strategy" for improvements being pondered by WWW Team
> (I used big letters purposely to match it against Wiki Team)?
> 4) new ideas emerged, what about them?
> Thank you.
> Apart from the above text I'd like to submit another idea of mine. But
> let me say first that we ended now with no changes. In other words if
> someone wants to write let him write. Only after that "we" will think
> (e.g. WWW Tem or Wiki Team) were to pigeonhole the text.
> A few days ago Jeremy C. Reed created new page in Wiki. Sporadic, ad
> hoc activity tailored to suddenly emerging circumstations aka needs.
> But without vision for Wiki or NetBSD docu as a whole. No wonder some
> of you (me for sure) are discourage to write. Where, what, in what
> format, etc.
> I can create new WWW with NetBSD contents ina few days. It's no problem
> as I designed and created numerous WWWs (back from OS/2 Warp times).
> But what for? For personal glory? That's why I started the disscussion
> about doc issues seeing places where it could be improved.
this is volunteer project we all here have own reasons.
> For the last time I suggest you a change. No threat, but result of my
> discouragement. What about Great NetBSD Docu Division? What's that?
> Namely (the sequence is important):
> 1) "WWW Team" and "Wiki Team" will be "formally" elected (with
> common sense on mind of course :-) ) with __member names available to
> 2) WWW Team and Wiki Team will declare mutual help signed on highest
> levels. :-)
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand
binary numbers, and those who don't.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (NetBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----