Re: DocBook vs LinuxDoc (was LDP Incorporate ...)

> I'll say now what I said then.  The tools were a kluge,
and the format was
> inferior to DocBook.  Moving was, and remains, the
right decision.  IMO no
> purpose at all would be served by trying to revive
LinuxDoc.

i agree

saqib
http://security-
basics.blogspot.com/

______________________
http://lists.tldp.org/

On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 08:27:02PM -0800, Ali, Saqib wrote:
> > I'll say now what I said then.  The tools were a
kluge, and the format was
> > inferior to DocBook.  Moving was, and remains, the
right decision.  IMO no
> > purpose at all would be served by trying to revive
LinuxDoc.
> 
> i agree

Furthermore, it's rather pathetic to see Mr. Lawyer make an
interesting, reasonable proposal, then sabotage the
discussion of it
by hijacking the thread into yet another interminable rehash
of
LinuxDoc.

Can we return to the original proposal?

-- 

Charles Curley                  /"    ASCII Ribbon
Campaign
Looking for fine software        /    Respect for open
standards
and/or writing?                  X     No HTML/RTF in email
http://www.charlescurley
.com    /     No M$ Word docs in email

Key fingerprint = CE5C 6645 A45A 64E4 94C0  809C FFF6 4C48
4ECD DFDB