Re: linux kernel docs

From: Theodore Ts'o (
Date: Wed Aug 02 2000 - 09:20:49 EST

   From: "Copeland, Matthew" <>
   Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 10:00:31 -0700

           A good point. I had forgotten that this move was being made. My
   personal thought is that if we are going to be developing things new, then
   we should use the XML and just eat the learning curve, since we would have
   to do it at some point in the future anyway, we might as well all do it at
   once rather than each of us attempting a little bit at a time to convert one
   part of a set of documents later. It would also save us from having to
   convert later, so we can kind of think of it as an investment in the

Docbook XML may be more "future proof", but right now the open source
tools for docbook are a complete disaster. (Has anyone actually looked
at the documentation of Jade?!?) Linuxdoc may be politically incorrect
these days, but its tools for processing it are far better than Docbook
at the moment.

So before someone starts pushing Docbook yet again, could that person
work to make the Docbook tools *better*, instead of just pushing the
Format That Will Solve World Hunger on to hapless victims that have to
suffer the horrors of Jade? (I will note that there *still* isn't a
docbook to txt conversion Open Source solution, whereas linuxdoc has
such a tool already.)


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 07 2000 - 21:00:08 EST