On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 02:35:02PM -0500, Lawrence Greenfield wrote: > Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 10:56:07 -0500 > From: Scott Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [...] > Sooo... any reason why the docs aren't sgml and then built for text, > html, ps, etc? Think of this as less of a request and more of 'would > CMU be interested' type question. :) > > No objections, but it's one of those things of "is it worth creating > more dependencies" versus the current very simple htmlstrip and html > files. > > At one point I converted some of the files to XHTML and that process > will probably continue slowly. If someone has a good idea of how to > make the documentation easier to deal with, we're all for it.
I'm not sure it would be easier. It's question of maintaining sgml docbook sources vs xhtml/html sources. The theoretical advantage is that the sgml/docbook tools are plentiful and easily exported to other formats. It might also be a good motivation for me to get learning docbook/sgml :) -- Scott Russell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Linux Technology Center, System Admin, RHCE. Dial 877-735-8200 then ask for 919-543-9289 (TTY)
