Re: LDP Incorporate under "Software in the Public Interest"

Le 2007-11-04 01:33:00 -0700, David Lawyer écrivait :
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 09:54:15AM -0600, Ian Hakes
wrote:
> > I think this is a good idea. Having access to a
larger pool of volunteers
> > might help with tasks like translation, Docbook
encoding, etc, so that LDP
> > can reach a larger audience, and is more
accessible to general technical
> > writers.
> 
> With the simple LinuxDoc available, encoding in DocBook
is not a high
> priority task IMO.

Having LDP documents published in a single source format
(preferably 
something compatible with Unicode, like XML DocBook) would
really help a 
lot the translation of LDP documents.

Currently translators needs to "speak" DocBook and
LinuxDoc and 
translation projects needs to be able to handle both formats
(for 
publishing, translator's documentation, etc.).

This adds a lot of complexity for no added benefits (at
least from the 
point of view of a translation project).

-- 
Jean-Philippe Guérard
http://tigreraye.org

______________________
http://lists.tldp.org/

JEAN-PHILIPPE GUéRARD WRITES:

> LE 2007-11-04 01:33:00 -0700, DAVID LAWYER éCRIVAIT :
>> ON WED, OCT 31, 2007 AT 09:54:15AM -0600, IAN HAKES
WROTE:
>> > I THINK THIS IS A GOOD IDEA. HAVING ACCESS TO
A LARGER POOL OF VOLUNTEERS
>> > MIGHT HELP WITH TASKS LIKE TRANSLATION,
DOCBOOK ENCODING, ETC, SO THAT LDP
>> > CAN REACH A LARGER AUDIENCE, AND IS MORE
ACCESSIBLE TO GENERAL TECHNICAL
>> > WRITERS.
>> 
>> WITH THE SIMPLE LINUXDOC AVAILABLE, ENCODING IN
DOCBOOK IS NOT A HIGH
>> PRIORITY TASK IMO.
> 
> HAVING LDP DOCUMENTS PUBLISHED IN A SINGLE SOURCE
FORMAT (PREFERABLY 
> SOMETHING COMPATIBLE WITH UNICODE, LIKE XML DOCBOOK)
WOULD REALLY HELP A 
> LOT THE TRANSLATION OF LDP DOCUMENTS.

I'LL THROW MY TWO CENTS IN FAVOR OF DOCBOOK XML.

SINCE IT'S XML-BASED, WHEN YOU'RE DOING DOCUMENTATION WITH
DOCBOOK, YOU HAVE 
A HUGE ASSORTMENT OF VARIOUS XML TOOLS AVAILABLE TO YOU.