Hello,
Fair enough --- but understand that would would edit it ;)
J
On 31 Oct 2001, Norman Walsh wrote:
>/ Poet/Joshua Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
>| OpenDocs publishing is considering publishing the 2.02 version of DocBook
>| the Definitive Guide.
>
>Please don't. The 2.0.2 ve
/ Phillip Shelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
| It is in need of heavy review and editing. I do not mind pointing out
| errors as
| I find then, (But would like to know where the best place to send this would
| be?) But in its present state it is not worth hardcopy publishing.
I just a
/ Poet/Joshua Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
| OpenDocs publishing is considering publishing the 2.02 version of DocBook
| the Definitive Guide.
Please don't. The 2.0.2 version is entirely unready for print
publication: it's a work in progress, slowly making a transformation
from an
> I 'read' the print, use the on-line for quick search/reference.
>
> REgards DaveP
This is what I think,
I wouldn't use the reference within a hardcopy,
but read the other content when having
no screen in front of me.
I would buy it,
Chris
---
wrong impression of DocBook
if it were hardcopy.
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Pawson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, 30 October 2001 4:37
> To: Phillip Shelton; 'Poet/Joshua Drake'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: DOCBOOK: Would you buy the DocBook boo
At 10:49 29/10/2001 +1000, Phillip Shelton wrote:
>It is in need of heavy review and editing. I do not mind pointing out
>errors as
>I find then, (But would like to know where the best place to send this would
>be?) But in its present state it is not worth hardcopy publishing.
Rather harsh?
Muc
It is in need of heavy review and editing. I do not mind pointing out
errors as
I find then, (But would like to know where the best place to send this would
be?) But in its present state it is not worth hardcopy publishing.
> -Original Message-
> From: Poet/Joshua Drake [mailto:[EMAIL PR
On Fri, 2001-10-26 at 19:06, Poet/Joshua Drake wrote:
> Hello,
>
> OpenDocs publishing is considering publishing the 2.02 version of DocBook
> the Definitive Guide. We have talked with OReilly and they are o.k. with
> us publishing it (it is GFDL).
>
> My question is; would you buy it? Is it use
Joshua Drake wrote:
>
>>What are the main differences between it and the existing O'Reilly
>>Duck Book?
>
>The current OReilly book covers 3.x of DocBook the new book covers
4.x.
>We would also add a couple of chapters on "HOWTO" type stuff.
If there was more information on customizing DSSSL sty
>What are the main differences between it and the existing O'Reilly
>Duck Book?
The current OReilly book covers 3.x of DocBook the new book covers 4.x.
We would also add a couple of chapters on "HOWTO" type stuff.
J
>
>
--
--
CommandPrompt - http://www.commandprompt.com
OpenDocs, LLC. - h
Joshua Drake wrote:
>OpenDocs publishing is considering publishing the 2.02 version of
DocBook
>the Definitive Guide. We have talked with OReilly and they are o.k.
with
>us publishing it (it is GFDL).
>
>My question is; would you buy it? Is it useful?
What are the main differences between it a
11 matches
Mail list logo
