On Sat, 2004-07-31 at 03:22, Dave Pawson wrote: > > Having said that, because the DocBook tools are so easy, it's *FAR* more > > efficient to use them while writing than for someone else to come in > > after the fact and do markup. > > I found them quite daunting to get installed and set up. I don't think > they are straightforward. > Emacs has a huge learning curve. Emacs plus psgml another step. > Add xml into that and I see why it stops some people. > > I agree with the rationale for using it though. Dave, you've just hit on something important. If getting the toolset installed or configured is a barrier, that means our "Documentation Guide" isn't doing its job, and should have some parts rewritten to make it easier to get your tools set up. Which part exactly gave you trouble? Any time someone gets "stopped at the gate," so to speak, that's a warning sign that we're suffering from an unnecessary barrier to entry. Here's an example, not necessarily relevant to your particular problem(s): Suppose a would-be author didn't know, and couldn't figure out, that the "Authoring and Publishing" package group must be installed. That should either be in the Guide, or there should be a tool available for them to do some preliminary checking. Not that this is an earth-shattering breakthrough, but in the past, I've used tools in our office where people can do: wget -O - http://some/served/file | sh To accomplish certain "stock" configuration or recon tasks, simply as a job aid. When we have an office-wide change, I only have to change the file in one location. Just a thought.... In any case, maybe having a "Quick Start" that allows the impatient to automate the process would be helpful. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE
