Re: Switching to XML

On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 13:26 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
<snip>
> Yes which is generated from our use of SGML which is the core of this
> problem and the core of the question as a whole.
>
> SGML is making working with the documentation *harder*.

>From a total outsider's point of view I have to disagree. It took me a
couple of minutes to figure out how to make the tiny change I did the
other day by looking at the rest of the sgml (managed to get the diff
the wrong way around but not the sgml :/).

> We have people that *DO NOT* contribute because of this SGML
> requirement. They have what I consider extremely valid reasons, namely
> it is dumb to require a writer to use emacs or write tags explictly.

Again would have to disagree - surely if someone really wants to
contribute they could provide their input in plain text, and someone on
the list could then integrate those contribs.

> Hell, the only reason I have even bothered to contribute what little I
> have to the docs is because I wrote a book in SGML, thus it is a no
> brainer to me. Others aren't so tortured as to have done the same.

I would hate to hand edit the stuff generated by something like
OpenOffice.org.

> There is a long standing support within the community to move to XML
> including:
>
> Josh Berkus
> Josh Drake
> Robert Treat
> Andrew Dunslane
> David Blewett
> David Fetter
> Devrim Gunduz
> Darcy Buskermolen
>
> And that is just from #postgresql
>
> The french team also uses Docbook XML and they can generate a PDF in 30
> minutes... it takes us DAYS because of the SGML.

Here I agree - 30 minutes vs days is a good reason - as long as editing
with an ascii editor is not taken away.

--
Regards
Theo