|
List Info Thread: 7 points user's memo (was why XML?)
[1-3]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
about | contact Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics ) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 points user's memo (was why XML?) |
|
List Info Thread: 7 points user's memo (was why XML?)
[1-3]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
about | contact Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics ) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
planix.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.
Hi,
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2) outdated docu-pages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
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.
My questions are:
1) do we take the status quo for granted?
2) in what field (4 points above) can we succeed soon?
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.
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
all__.
2) WWW Team and Wiki Team will declare mutual help signed on
highest
levels. 
).
6) WWW Team will
a) determine ultimate docu-page creation tools used by
developers and
users alike
b) create page describing efficient usage of the tools
c) treat Point 7, specially point b) with outmost
importance.
7) WWW Team and Wiki Team will create guidlines for future
development/improvement NetBSD Documentation.
What do you think about it?
Regards,
pp
--
Przemysław Pawełczyk <pp
