2010/6/28 Karsten Wade - kw...@redhat.com <+tosmaillist+neophyte_rep+4c8a4e5c8a.kwade#redhat....@spamgourmet.com>: > On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 05:42:29PM -0700, > tosmaillist.neophyte_...@ordinaryamerican.net wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Chris Tyler - ch...@tylers.info wrote: >> > A part of an earlier comment that got sniped is: >> > >> >> It's also been my experience that building data with a schedule-driven >> >> choice of data manipulation tools locks in that tool set rather >> >> permanently. Few people like to transcribe a large set of data they >> >> have spent precious time creating. >> > >> > I'm pretty confident that we're not locking ourselves into anything evil >> > here -- DocBook is one of the most-transformable formats available. >> > >> > -Chris >> >> I'm sorry. I had no intention of implying that the current tool set >> and data formats used were in any way "evil". > > I'm sure Chris meant this in the colloquial sense, not the > metaphysical. Tools that work and play nicely with others are good, > ones that don't are evil, etc. In that sense, if using DocBook XML > "locks in that tool set ... permanently", that would be evil, but not > actually EVIL evil. ;-) Fortunately, XML is great for transformation > and is one reason we use it. > > - Karsten
I use "evil" infrequently because, to me, it is a strong word. In any case, I am not criticizing the particular tools chosen. I'm suggesting an open discussion of the requirements would improve the quality of the project. _______________________________________________ tos mailing list tos@teachingopensource.org http://teachingopensource.org/mailman/listinfo/tos
