On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 23:44 +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote: > On Monday 09 March 2009 23:10:56 Devin Heitmueller wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 6:03 PM, wk <handygewinnspiel@xxxxxx> wrote: > > The reality is that there is *some* value a developer can contribute > > in reviewing the content and providing feedback and a *TON* of grunt > > work involved that can be done by anybody who takes the time to learn > > docbook. If someone wants to volunteer to do the former, I'm sure > > some developers would be willing to do the latter. > > Indeed. If someone could do the 'grunt' work of converting the dvb doc into > DocBook The Google leads me to ask: What about a LaTeX to HTML or OOo Writer convertor: http://www.tug.org/utilities/texconv/textopc.html#TeX4ht (maybe oolatex?) Then OOo Writer saving to DocBook? I suspect it won't be perfect, but since existing software does the heavy lifting, it beats manual conversion. I didn't quite understand why a conversion is necessary, but I do see a lot of hard-coded structures in the LaTeX documents, which I suspect is a pain to keep up to date. > and integrating it into the existing v4l docbook, I'm not sure of the value in that. <opinion> Implmenting something to multiple (or multi-volume) specifications is indeed a pain, but it makes documentation maintenance easier as the task is easily divided along areas of personnel expertise. Assuming the rate of documentation maintencance does not rapidly increase, keeping documentation maintenace simple is paramount. Also multiple specifcations (or volumes) clearly group requirements into large chunks of "I don't care about that volume" and "I do care about this volume". Combining the V4L2 and DVB spec into one volume would probably be a strategic error for some tactical advantage in dealing with hybrid devices. </opinion> Regards, Andy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
