RE: DOCBOOK: Would you buy the DocBook book?

[Phillip Shelton <shelton@usq.edu.au>]

Apologies for being so harsh.

And I have nothing against DocBook or its documentation.

I just don't feel that the community would be served well if the 2.0.2
version was hardcopied as is.  I tend to buy books as references and I feel
that the 2.0.2tar file of the TDG would give the wrong impression of DocBook
if it were hardcopy.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Pawson [mailto:daveP@dpawson.freeserve.co.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, 30 October 2001 4:37
> To: Phillip Shelton; 'Poet/Joshua Drake'; docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: DOCBOOK: Would you buy the DocBook book?
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Much is valid, some outdated. If docbook were static, it wouldn't be
> as valid surely?
> 
> I'm sure either of the docbook lists would listen to your error list
> (and chances are they would be acted on).
> 
> I 'read' the print, use the on-line for quick search/reference.
> 
> REgards DaveP
>