On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 5:45 AM, Tomeu Vizoso <to...@sugarlabs.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 21:47, Sayamindu Dasgupta <sayami...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > [Jumping into the discussion midway]: > > > > From an l10n point of view, I would highly recommend adopting (and > > perhaps extending) the GNOME documentation framework. It is docbook > > based, which is a format pretty easy to pick up (and I believe > > OpenOffice.org can also export to docbook - though I have never tried > > it out). > > Well, I think it was a decision by the people who wrote the manual to > use floss manuals, I guess it would be up to them which tool they use. > And in the same way, translators would choose the tools that best suit > them. I think that floss manuals has already tools for translation and > also think that people have worked on a translation to spanish, Maybe > we should ask to those people which was their experience with the > floss manuals tool set? > > Regards, > > Tomeu > The difference AFAIK was that FM offered pretty strong print-ability as a wiki-pdf solution. They also have a very reasonable WYSIWYG editor on their twiki. Does the GNOME doc framework support this? I haven't explored it.
_______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep