Re: [docbook] Ruminations on the future of DocBook

[Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com>]

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
 >  John R. Daily <john@geekhavoc.com> wrote
 >>>For DocBook, I think that time has come.
 >>>
 > ...
 >>think it borders on self-evident that DocBook needs significant
 >>refactoring.)
 >>
 > No, it is not self-evident.

Did you actually read
http://norman.walsh.name/2003/05/21/docbook
and
http://norman.walsh.name/2003/05/29/moredocbook
?

 > DocBook needs documentation (TDG is only a
 > first attempt), needs training (any MS-Word trainer knows how it is
 > difficult to make people use styles, not presentation marks), needs
 > software (tools are stilll much too buggy, specially jadetex and
 > passivetex),

All those are indeed areas where improvement is desirable. But I don't 
see how that contradicts Norm's initiative.

 > but it does not need yet another rewriting

What would be bad about something good? :)

Seriously though, the point is to improve DocBook. I think that that's a 
very worthy effort.

 > that will
 > render obsolete all the training already performed (not to mention
 > documents).

http://norman.walsh.name/2003/05/21/docbook
"I think one of the goals should be that most valid DocBook documents 
can be transformed into new valid V.next documents with XSLT."

 > My personal opinion on Docbook is that too much time is spent on the
 > standard and not enough on the surrounding environment (docs, tools).

Both areas (would) benefit from your support :)

Tobi

-- 
http://www.pinkjuice.com/