Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 18:58:27 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Chuck Robey <chuckr@Glue.umd.edu> Cc: FreeBSD-doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Linuxdoc Message-ID: <7005.833939907@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 04 Jun 1996 21:40:23 EDT." <Pine.OSF.3.91.960604212648.26610G-100000@ginger.eng.umd.edu>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
> I sent this to John Fieber, then I realized I should have let the list in > on it. I was noting that the idea of making an intermediate language > like linuxdoc is a good one, the only bad part (for me) is the specific > choice of linuxdoc. The reasons that I can't use it are (1) I've never > been able to undersatnd sgml all that well, and (2) linuxdoc seems to be > undocumented. My understanding is that linuxdoc is just a DTD, and poorly documented or not only one part of our SGML environment. The choice of SGML itself seems to be a non-issue. Everyone from Sun to HP to DEC (I live with a tech writer who's a docs project manager for Sun and worked everywhere else before that) is moving to SGML and some DTD, O'Reilly and associates has all of its authors writing in SGML using their own DTD (which they'll provide to anyone for free, BTW) and the world in general is just moving away from groff and TeX. So we're on the right train, let's not let the color of the upholstery motivate us into switching back to the more familiar yet outmoded horse and buggy. :-) Jordanhelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7005.833939907>