Roland Mainz wrote: > Mike Kupfer wrote: >>>>>>> "Roland" == Roland Mainz <roland.mainz at nrubsig.org> writes: >> Roland> the XWiki format is XWiki-specific (or better: >> Roland> application/vendor-specific) and is far less capable than >> Roland> DocBook, e.g. we loose interopabilty, portabilty, all the >> Roland> processing capabilties the DocBook toolschains have and AFAIK >> Roland> there are not many editors which have XWiki markup support. >> >> I agree that we would lose those things, and I'm not happy about it. >> But if we're not actually taking advantage of Docbook's features, I >> don't see this as a compelling argument. I think it's more important to >> make it easier for people to contribute DevRef updates. > > Erm... are you sure the XWiki format qualifies itself as "easier" ? > >> So far, I seem >> to be the only person making changes.
I don't have a feel for the barriers that prevent updating this information. I suspect that the tools and format prevent quick, casual updates, but I doubt that they stand in the way of any substantive contributions. But I have no data. Like Mike, I'm neutral on giving up the docbook features that we have never used. Like Roland, I'm wary of change for the sake of change, and of the potential for XWiki to be more transient than docbook. I'm mostly convinced that moving to XWiki would make it easier for more people to update the DevRef. Even if they don't choose to, it seems like we've still solved at least part of the problem. And I don't think it's a ton of extra work later, should we further evolve. Even if docbook supports XWiki output, I don't think that helps us much. Potential contributors would still need to learn enough docbook, and use of the toolchain, to effect their changes. So I'm lukewarm but supportive of the proposal to change to XWiki. --Mark > Umpf... this comment reminds me of a piece of history (and see at the > bottom of this email, too): > AFAIK the same arguments were done more than twenty years ago for the > X11 documentation. Instead of sticking with a standard format the X11 > Consortium picked an application-specific format to do most of the X11 > documentation. Twenty years later these files were simply "blobs of raw > data" where the applications weren't available anymore (and even if you > had binaries you needed a license key), the file format documentation > was incomplete (making it impossible to write a converter) and the > people who originally wrote the documentation were long retired or > "gone". At the end all these documents were unuseable, unsalvageable and > simply "lost" - because twenty years ago someone picked the "hip&&cool > file format of the month". > > That's why I am unhappy that we try to repeat this _mistake_ of picking > an application/vendor-specific file format again (and specifically Sun > has a longer history of repeating this particular issue over and over > again (while spending lots of money in supporting the DocBooks folks in > parallel)). > Just because the XWiki format is "hip&&cool" in 2009 it doesn't mean it > will be usefull in 2015. > >> Roland> 2. AFAIK the newer DocBook XSLT stylesheets have Wiki support (I >> Roland> think it's MediaWiki bur I am not sure) - did you take a look >> Roland> at that yet ? >> >> I remember taking a quick look a couple months ago and not seeing >> support for wiki formats, but I'll take another look. > > Ok... I droped a note in the DocBook mailinglist to get some information > back... > >> Roland> 3. If we really switch the documentation to the XWiki >> Roland> format... how do we do the output for printed media or >> Roland> embedding the documentation in a larger set of docments >> Roland> (e.g. like a book) ? >> >> For printed media, you'd print it like any other page on the site. > > Erm... that's not what I mean. "Printed media" is not equal to "Convert > Wiki to HTML and then print it". "Printed media" in this context means > that it has been laid-out for paged devices (e.g. a printer) while the > printout of a Wiki page from a HTML browser is basicall a scollable view > rendered on paper (or short: The difference is that some pages really > look like "garbabe" because things like page breaks are missing, tables > are broken-up the wrong way etc. (a better description of the > differences can be found in one of Knuth's TeX books)). > >> I don't know how you'd embed it in a larger document like a book. > > DocBook allows you to grab one set of DocBook/XML files and include it > in other DocBook documents (e.g. to describe it for a C programmer: > #include/#ifdef/#else/#endif processing can be done with > xinclude+DocBook features), e.g. one text can be re-used by multiple > different DocBook documents. > >> But >> like I said above, since I don't see people doing that, removing that >> capability doesn't seem like an important issue to me. > > What happens if you go away in 15 years and the XWiki format has changed > or was replaced with a newer version fo "hip&&cool software of the > month" ? Don't we already have enougth pain with the propiretary Jive > page format ? > > ---- > > Bye, > Roland >
