OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

docbook message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [docbook] An apology and some minor revelations

Daniel Veillard wrote:

>   No comfort, work on DocBook processing tools have been ongoing for years
> and is likely to continue, it's an evolution process, maybe you just didn't
> had the resources installed, maybe your version don't have some part available,
> it's independant of the system, a Windows user could have had the same
> problems as yours too. To me it's a direct consequence of not having docbook
> tools available as a system but as a collection of resources. It make sense
> for a lot of installation to just rely on components, but from an end-user
> perspective, it makes the use sometime challenging. A lot of the FAQ entries
> are not about pure DocBook issues but about tools, installation, integration
> and making sure that the chain works.

Any independent entity (eg a group of develppers, OS/distro vendors, or 
any commercial company) could offer a toolchain setup ("system") or even 
a one-click installer plus GUI interface, or a full-blown WYSIWYG editor 
offer everything any tool collection could offer.

> Integration can be done to some extend
> by the people creating the Operating System but to be really integrated
> and getting simple for the end-user this would require a more synchronization
> at the DocBook group level,

I don't agree.

> which so far defines it only as a language and
> not as a system (I'm not saying it the way thing should be done, but it
> would be one way to make it simpler).

I firmly believe that the DocBook TC should concentrate exclusively on 
developing the language (specs, schemas), and leave the tasks of 
implementing the language (creating tools, toolchain setups and 
installations, the "system") to others.

It's great if language designers get feedback from implementers and 
users, but there should be independent implementers, and multiple 
choices per type of tool.

For me, the "system" is the loose network of independent entities (TC, 
developers, users, vendors, etc). Only if the workload is distributed 
redundantly across separate and independent entities can DocBook as a 
whole continue to flourish, IMHO. I prefer an open democratic community 
even with all it's complex challenges over a single-entity "simple" 

Having the TC take care of everything from language to the complete 
toolchain and installation would mean less competition (which generally 
is know to be *worse* for end-users), and a single potential point of 
Sure, Flash [swf] is "easier to use" than SVG [svg], but what if MM goes 
out of business?


closed source implementation by the same single company developing the 
proprietary format
various open source implementations, spec developed by a consortium of 
many companies plus invited experts from the community


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]