Re: [docbook] An apology and some minor revelations

[Daniel Veillard <veillard@redhat.com>]

On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 11:52:00PM +0200, Tobias Reif wrote:
> Yes, for example. That's my whole point (that if there must be one 
> central committee concerned with setup and installation rules etc, it 
> should not be the TC (the group which develops the language)).

  Sure it doesn't have to be the same group.

> You might want to describe your suggestion in more detail, so that 
> misunderstandings can be avoided. I think I might have a partly 
> incorrect impression, so it would help to know what exactly it is what 
> you're proposing.

  I do not have a complete suggestion. The whole thread comes from end-user
feedback who cannot understand the whole set of spec and components needed
to process DocBook. It seems that having an integrated environment where
a complete set of tools is glued together to simplify those issues is 
a software project which could help DocBook deployment to non-technical
people a lot. This could cross a lot of things:
   - wrapper tools around existing low level processing tools
   - editing support ((X)Emacs/OpenOffice/... components)
One example familiar to this community could be the Gutemberg LaTeX 
releases which where testing and packaging a common set of tools
around the basic TeX/LaTeX environment. IIRC this helped a lot of
people who had to install a complete and working LaTeX environment.

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
veillard@redhat.com  | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/