On 14 November 2005 08:32, Gour wrote:
> Nobody said that DocBook does not work fine. However let me quote
> SPJ's message:
>
>
> However, I still wonder if there are things we could do that would
> make
> it easier for people to contribute. Here are two concrete
> suggestions: ^^^
> - M
Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Hmm, MediaWiki already supports the concept of discussion pages.
Yes, I know. Perhaps I was less than lucid, so to clarify:
But I doubt that it's a good thing to maintain DocBook sources via a wiki.
I think it would be best to keep the documentation in DocBook a
Gour wrote:
Nobody said that DocBook does not work fine. However let me quote SPJ's
message:
However, I still wonder if there are things we could do that would make
it easier for people to contribute. Here are two concrete suggestions:
^^^
- Make it possible for people to add comments,
Am Sonntag, 13. November 2005 22:22 schrieb Gour:
> [...]
> But don't forget, as it was already stated, get the whole working-chain
> ready for authoring in Docbook is not at all ready and for one not
> proficient in emacs with SGML mode it is very difficult to write texts with
> so many tags.
Yo
Am Montag, 14. November 2005 10:49 schrieb Ketil Malde:
> [...]
> I think it would be ideal to provide the documentation on the web as
> now, but linking to wikified talk pages. Something like Wikipedia,
> (since MediaWiki was brought up) but perhaps with restricted write
> access to the "feature
Am Sonntag, 13. November 2005 22:05 schrieb Gour:
> [...]
> > The question is if HTML is sufficient. In addition, HTML is at some
> > points not well thought-out.
>
> True, but considering the present situation, it is all what is required.
I doubt this. How, for example, do you implement code s
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 11:03 +0100, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 13. November 2005 22:05 schrieb Gour:
> > [...]
>
> > > The question is if HTML is sufficient. In addition, HTML is at some
> > > points not well thought-out.
> >
> > True, but considering the present situation, it is all wh
Sven Panne ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Great! If you have already an XML editor, start writing DocBook now! :-)
No, I won't :-)
> More seriously: This is again a useless tools discussion, we *are* using
> DocBook currently and it works fine. The real problem is not the XML format
> and any XM
2005/11/13, Gour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Sven Panne ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > * DocBook XML can be transformed into a very rich collection of output
> > formats: XHTML, HTML Help, DVI, PS, PDF, FO, plain text, etc. etc.
>
> txt2tags has the following backends: HTML, XHTML, SGML, LaTeX, Lout,
Am Sonntag, 13. November 2005 22:22 schrieb Gour:
>[...]
> Besides that, 'txt2tags-like technology' is already in use for some time
> - e.g AFT (http://www.maplefish.com/todd/aft.html) dating back in '99
> and XMLmind XML Editor has plugin which supports (similar) markup called
> APT (http://www.xm
Sven Panne ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * DocBook XML can be transformed into a very rich collection of output
> formats: XHTML, HTML Help, DVI, PS, PDF, FO, plain text, etc. etc.
txt2tags has the following backends: HTML, XHTML, SGML, LaTeX, Lout,
man, Magic Point, Moin Moin, Page Maker 6.0 &
Am Sonntag, 13. November 2005 22:05 schrieb Gour:
> Wolfgang Jeltsch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>[...]
> > The question is if HTML is sufficient. In addition, HTML is at some
> > points not well thought-out.
>
> True, but considering the present situation, it is all what is required.
Well, that's
Wolfgang Jeltsch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> The font size is much smaller than the font size of other webpages. So if I
> would change the default font size to give good results with the Haskell
> website, all other websites would have their text in very large letters.
Well, haskell.org has
Wolfgang Jeltsch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> The most important question is: Does txt2tags use logical markup?
A kind of, e.g.
= title =
== subtitle ==
=== subsub...===
if this is logical ;)
Sincerely,
Gour
--
Registered Linux User | #278493
GPG Public Key | 8C44EDCD
__
Wolfgang Jeltsch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> In addition, one could argue that since newsgroups were specifically
> designed for discussions, newsgroup software allows proper mangagement
> of threads but, well, current e-mail programs might do this in similar
> quality.
>From the most plain mail
15 matches
Mail list logo
