Subject: Re: NetBSD Documentation Framework - how to do it
To: None <>
From: Mike M. Volokhov <>
List: netbsd-docs
Date: 12/14/2006 14:52:03
"James K. Lowden" <> wrote:
> Mike M. Volokhov wrote:
> > "James K. Lowden" <> wrote:
> > > Mike M. Volokhov wrote:
> > > > This can (and is) done in the following forms:
> > > > 
> > > > 	- web-site
> > > > 	- documents for offline browsing
> > > > 	- documents for printing (including books)
> > > > 	- other forms (not addressed here): verbal, prezos, ads...
> > > > 
> > > > Can you use Jade as solution for the first three? Yes, but it has
> > > > not been adopted for this yet. 
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure what you mean by "it has not been adopted for this yet." 
> I wasn't trying to be combative, Mishka.  I was hoping you would explain
> what you meant by "not adopted". 

I wasn't either.  :-)

I'll try directly answer on your question. Both good web-site and
good printed book have something that differs them from their bad
made "colleagues". There are easy to read and understand content,
none of grammatical and logical errors, smart navigation, eye candy
design, and many more. It's easy to see that right now we have a
bad docs.

On the back side of this "moon" we have a documentation workflow.
Important features here include easy typesetting, effective
collaborative authoring, convenient language translation procedures,
and flexible and easy to use tools for media preparation. And
situation here is more interesting. We have a tools available on
OSS "market", for example, Jade. But with terrible workflow we
can't made good books or site. So yes, tools was not adopted enough
for NetBSD.

If we will take Jade again, there is no jade-based framework to
build perfect books (correct me please if I'm wrong; but see above).
Although this is quite possible. So Jade was not adopted at all.
To be clear here I'm pretty sure that with current DocBook stylesheets
you can not produce good book - they are need further customization.

> > Please compare the following two guides:
> > 
> > 	-
> > 	-
> Done. I think your point is that Dru's book is more visually attractive? 
> And that you would like to see us using a toolchain that produced
> similarly attractive works?  And you doubt DocBook is the answer?  
> Using one source document to produce a website and a book requires
> compromises.  If your goal is "most attractive", you have to be willing to
> use two sources.  If your goal is "more attractive than today", you could
> stick with DocBook and tailor it both with stylesheets and some
> output-specific sections.  

What I'm trying to do is to create documentation framework build
on top of well defined workflow. And yes, the goal is "most attractive
ever". I'll hope we all together can do this with single source
documents :-)

Best regards,