Am Die, 2003-07-22 um 20.47 schrieb Carol Spears:
> I tried to work with simple docbook, docbook, website docbook.
> I don't know how recent your gimp download is but this format
> is nothing like gimp since gimp-1.0.2. I have to stretch my
> imagination so much to make the format fit the gimp.
How so?
> I was actually going to try to substitute <corpauthor> for <email>.
> Do you know how deeply the email string is nested in any
> docbook?
Yes, I know but this is for a purpose. You could also put this
information (except it's mandantory) in a normal paragraph; however
you don't have the type information in the transformation process later
in case you could make some use of it -- like print the Author's name
(without emailaddress) on the bottom of every page in the document.
> trust me and my recent experience, docbook was not written at
> all with gimp in mind.
It was written with documentation in mind which is exactly what we need;
I wouldn't use it as a fileformat for images at all.
> for instance, it is obvious to me that the docbook people could not
> imagine an app that can take its own screenshots.
They didn't design this (because it *IS* overkill) but you can certainly
express it using the given hooks.
> as much as i love gimp, i wonder if someone got their rent paid
> from netscape.com for making that my choice regardless. With
> everything else being so sensible in gimp, how come i did not
> get a choice that included lynx or the awesome w3m? did you know
> w3m renders images on xterms lately? that means it could render
> any screenshots gimp gets of itself for its help docs.
I cannot imagine how this auto-screenshot feature is supposed to work;
but given that one can do anything within the bounds of imagination and
knowledge I cannot see why it wouldn't....
> i hate to limit the scope and imagination though, by being so
> disgusted with the docbook* set up.
I can write up a installation documentation for docbook + compilation of
xsltproc in less that 10 comprehensible lines... Remember we're not
talking about DocBook/SGML anywork -- that's a disgusting piece of work.
> daniel, do you have something to attach to an email? like i did?
What did you have in mind?
> no this is what happened. i tried to help, asked a few
> questions about the logic of the template and what the tags
> were *supposed* to mean, and syngin decided it was quicker
> and easier to write the documentation without help.
The tags are selfexplanatory, the meaning of them is nicely covered
(with examples) in the DocBook-book (the "duck book"). We're not
*requiring* any of them execept the structural ones (sects, paras,
chapters) however: the more the better.
> but i would like to be extremely clear about this. i am not going
> to waste my time contributing to docbook formated information.
> however, if you insist on setting the document writers up with
> that terrible template system again, i should be able to use
> the information anyways as a thoughtfully written xslt can over
> look the bad logic and find information there anyways. So what
> ever *you* commit, i can use.
See, I already offered to take content in *any* and enrich it using the
appropriate tags. Why? Because I'm not an good content writer because
I'm not creative enough. I know how to deal with DocBook, XML and XSLT
pretty well though.
Again: If you want to write, *do it*, send it to me *in any format
convenient for you* and I will merge the pieces. And believe me that I
won't say it another time because I'm starting to get sick of people who
claim wanting to write docs but at the same time complain about the
format and thus have a poor excuse why they cannot....
> also, we don't need the tree or the fruit of docbook, it is huge
> and the format is not good for gimp.
Okay, propose a better (XML-) format, write a DTD (yet better also a
Schema) *and* XSLT transformation into at least (X)HTML and PDF and
I'll call it a deal. Just tell me how long you need...
--
Servus,
Daniel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
