Subject:
|
Re: [faq FAQ How do I format an entry in the Lugnet FAQ?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.faq
|
Date:
|
Wed, 14 Jul 1999 22:53:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4661 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.faq, "Luis Villa" <liv@duke.edu> writes:
> This might not be my place to suggest, as I have not yet contributed anything,
That's OK -- there doesn't necessarily have to be a strong correlation
between the two, right? You've got an opinion and if it's logical (and not
a drive-by joke), then it's welcome here no matter what you have or haven't
contributed.
> but is there some particular reason why we are custom designing out own thing,
> instead of using a standardized format which already has conversion tools, like
> Docbook?
For certain types of things, it's faster, easier, and wiser in the long run
to make something new from scratch tailored to your needs than to go with
something that exists out there already and try to adapt it (even with the
source). It depends on the project. FAQs, for example, tend toward simple
questions and answers in simple paragraphs, with an occasional something-
extra...they don't need to be (and shouldn't be, IMHO) overly complex or
expressive, else they become difficult to maintain or contribute to.
Also keep in mind, there are very few web things in the LUGNET chute that
aren't bleeding-edge community design. For example, although the newsserver
is 10-year-old technology, there's nothing else like the web interface which
sits on top of it because nothing else out there fit the bill.
I'm extremely skeptical that there's any web tool out there that'll do
exactly (or even come anywhere near close to doing) what we want for the
FAQ. Sure, there might be tools which help with DTD'ing and HTML'ing, but
those aren't really a significant part of the equation...not enough to be
worth grabbing a huge software package for (but certainly worth
investigating Perl libraries or 'lynx --dump').
I don't doubt that it would be possible to use Docbook and make something
really really wonderful. But I can't imagine it not taking months and
months and then getting painted into a corner of having to install more and
more external tools to work with it and interface to other things, and then
still not having it come out as originally envisioned. It just seems like a
horrible can of worms to me.
> IMHO, that would be much easier for everyone involved- conversion
> tools already exist for everything short of stone tablets, and volumes have
> been written about using it.
"Volumes have been written about using it." -- isn't that a minus rather
than a plus? Sounds like a red-flag to me.
> I for one certainly don't have time to learna
> format specifically for this, and would love to contribute. Anyway, that is my
> two cents-
> Luis
Don't worry -- anything you see now is still in a protoplasm stage; it's a
mess because it's still evolving. When it's all ready for general
contribution, it'll really be a snap to contribute and maintain things --
all through simple news discussions to talk about suggestions/edits, and
through simple web pages for making the actual changes.
> P.S. If you want to check out a useful example of Docbook (well, linuxdoc, but
> same general idea), check out my Mindstorms LegOS HOWTO at:
>
> http://arthurdent.dorm.duke.edu/HOWTO/HOWTO.html
>
> In the same directory, you'll find .sgml source, and conversions to .dvi and
> .ps. Converting it to very well formed text is also exactly one command away. I
> strongly recommend this as a solution.
That URL didn't work for me, but I found this...(was it the best place to
look?)...
http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/
http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/documentation/reference/index.html
Well, Docbook sure looks nice and robust and well-thought-out, but given its
size and complexity, how could it possibly be comprehensible to a beginner?
Why, just downloading the reference zips online results in five hundred HTML
files of documentation totalling three and a half megabytes. :-(
That's great and all if you're writing a series of technical manuals for 747
jetliners, but it's probably about three orders of magnitude more complex
than what's needed here for simple FAQ things.
I looked through about 50 of the pages and got lost pretty quickly. I guess
that's why there must be other books on it, huh? :-)
--Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: [faq FAQ How do I format an entry in the Lugnet FAQ?]
|
| This might not be my place to suggest, as I have not yet contributed anything, but is there some particular reason why we are custom designing out own thing, instead of using a standardized format which already has conversion tools, like Docbook? (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jul-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
86 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
