283 lines
13 KiB
HTML
283 lines
13 KiB
HTML
<!-- MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
|
|
<!--X-Subject: Re: [oswg-dis] Re: Open Document Environment (ODE) -->
|
|
<!--X-From-R13: Rro Dvpuneqfba <qroNyvahkpner.pbz> -->
|
|
<!--X-Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 22:03:42 -0500 (EST) -->
|
|
<!--X-Message-Id: 38794BA4.3B8E47A5@linuxcare.com -->
|
|
<!--X-Content-Type: text/plain -->
|
|
<!--X-Reference: Pine.LNX.4.10.10001091310430.3267-100000@vodka.linuxkb.org -->
|
|
<!--X-Head-End-->
|
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML//EN">
|
|
<html>
|
|
<head>
|
|
<title>Re: [oswg-dis] Re: Open Document Environment (ODE)</title>
|
|
<link rev="made" href="mailto:deb@linuxcare.com">
|
|
</head>
|
|
<body>
|
|
<!--X-Body-Begin-->
|
|
<!--X-User-Header-->
|
|
<!--X-User-Header-End-->
|
|
<!--X-TopPNI-->
|
|
<hr>
|
|
[<a href="msg00993.html">Date Prev</a>][<a href="msg01019.html">Date Next</a>][<a href="msg01001.html">Thread Prev</a>][<a href="msg01019.html">Thread Next</a>][<a href="maillist.html#00997">Date Index</a>][<a href="threads.html#00997">Thread Index</a>]
|
|
<!--X-TopPNI-End-->
|
|
<!--X-MsgBody-->
|
|
<!--X-Subject-Header-Begin-->
|
|
<h1>Re: [oswg-dis] Re: Open Document Environment (ODE)</h1>
|
|
<hr>
|
|
<!--X-Subject-Header-End-->
|
|
<!--X-Head-of-Message-->
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><em>To</em>: <A HREF="mailto:oswg-discuss@oswg.org">oswg-discuss@oswg.org</A>, <A HREF="mailto:ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org">ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org</A>, <A HREF="mailto:ode-discuss@oswg.org">ode-discuss@oswg.org</A>, <A HREF="mailto:osrt@metalab.unc.edu">osrt@metalab.unc.edu</A>, <A HREF="mailto:linuxkb-discuss@seul.org">linuxkb-discuss@seul.org</A></li>
|
|
<li><em>Subject</em>: Re: [oswg-dis] Re: Open Document Environment (ODE)</li>
|
|
<li><em>From</em>: Deb Richardson <<A HREF="mailto:deb@linuxcare.com">deb@linuxcare.com</A>></li>
|
|
<li><em>Date</em>: Sun, 09 Jan 2000 22:01:56 -0500</li>
|
|
<li><em>Organization</em>: Linuxcare</li>
|
|
<li><em>References</em>: <<a href="msg01003.html">Pine.LNX.4.10.10001091310430.3267-100000@vodka.linuxkb.org</a>></li>
|
|
<li><em>Resent-cc</em>: recipient list not shown: ;</li>
|
|
<li><em>Resent-date</em>: 10 Jan 2000 02:57:03 -0000</li>
|
|
<li><em>Resent-from</em>: <A HREF="mailto:ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org">ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org</A></li>
|
|
<li><em>Resent-message-id</em>: <imWgDC.A.zZ._pUe4@murphy></li>
|
|
<li><em>Resent-sender</em>: <A HREF="mailto:ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org">ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org</A></li>
|
|
<li><em>Sender</em>: <A HREF="mailto:deb@murphy.debian.org">deb@murphy.debian.org</A></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
<!--X-Head-of-Message-End-->
|
|
<!--X-Head-Body-Sep-Begin-->
|
|
<hr>
|
|
<!--X-Head-Body-Sep-End-->
|
|
<!--X-Body-of-Message-->
|
|
<pre>
|
|
(Note: this is going to be my last crossposted message. I'll be posting
|
|
all followups only to ode-discuss@oswg.org. Archives will be available
|
|
if anyone misses anything.)
|
|
|
|
Aaron Turner wrote:
|
|
|
|
> Personally I would be very interested in getting the Free/Open/NetBSD and
|
|
> other groups involved in such a project. I however also feel (rather
|
|
> strongly) that content should be compartimentalized so that when I'm
|
|
> looking for getting Apache to run on Linux I don't keep running into
|
|
> FreeBSD centeric docs. Of course these compartments can overlap, but we
|
|
> need to be able to split it up for the end user.
|
|
|
|
This is where things get complicated. Who should document Apache, for
|
|
example? The Apache Group? The LDP for Linux? The FreeBSD for
|
|
FreeBSD? Etc. Logically, of course, Apache should be documented by the
|
|
Apache group. Additional documentation can be written to further
|
|
enhance existing docs -- enhancements by the LDP for Linux, by the
|
|
FreeBSD folks for their OS, etc. There could even be separate
|
|
expansions written for each separate Linux distribution -- "Apache on
|
|
Red Hat", "Apache on Debian", etc.
|
|
|
|
Should all of these documents be stored in the same place and maintained
|
|
by the same group? No. Apache docs belong with the Apache projects,
|
|
LDP docs with the LDP, and so on.
|
|
|
|
On the other hand, a centralized "card catalog" like that the Open
|
|
Source Research Team (OSRT) is working to develop, should and could
|
|
effectively index and cross reference all of these documents. The docs
|
|
aren't in the same location, nor are they controlled or updated by the
|
|
same group. Instead, all documentation projects are working together
|
|
with the OSRT to develop and maintain the meta-information that goes
|
|
into the card catalog. I really like where the OSRT is going with this,
|
|
and am very interested in working with them to make it a reality.
|
|
|
|
The docs will already be individuated by OS, package, etc., simply by
|
|
belonging to different projects and existing on different sites. What
|
|
the OSRT card catalog promises is the ability to quickly and easily find
|
|
the information you need through a centralized repository of
|
|
meta-information that is cooperatively maintained by all these different
|
|
projects. Simple is better. The OSRT is working on a simple but very
|
|
powerful solution.
|
|
|
|
> Wouldn't using the LSB or LDP exclude the FreeBSD'ers as those are Linux
|
|
> specific organization? I'm confused about the relationships between the
|
|
> various groups as you propose.
|
|
|
|
I specifically said that the LSB should be treated as the standards base
|
|
for Linux. I didn't suggest that it be used for/by other projects. If
|
|
the FreeBSD folks want to use the same standards, they can. If they
|
|
don't, they don't have to. If there were only one Linux-related
|
|
documentation project, then that documentation project would be the
|
|
logical place to develop and promote Linux documentation standards. But
|
|
there are multiple Linux-related documentation projects, just as there
|
|
are multiple distributions, etc. Similarly, if there were only one
|
|
Linux distribution, there would be no need for an LSB.
|
|
|
|
As far as I know, there is only one FreeBSD-related documentation
|
|
project. (I could be wrong about this, and folks should correct me if
|
|
I'm in error). As such, the FreeBSD DP is the logical organization for
|
|
developing documentation standards for FreeBSD.
|
|
|
|
Now, if we have open lines of communication between the various
|
|
standards-developing organizations (ie: The LSB, the FreeBSD DP, the
|
|
GNOME DP, etc), then these organizations can discuss chosen or proposed
|
|
standards as a group. But we don't need another organization to do
|
|
this...we don't need another committee. All we need is a mailing list
|
|
that interested people can participate in. Simple is better.
|
|
|
|
> As long as you have an open standard, others can write tools for it. HTML
|
|
> is such an example.
|
|
|
|
HTML is "sort of" a standard. It's also an output format, being used
|
|
primarily to mark up the formatting and appearance of a document. It is
|
|
not appropriate as a source format for documentation. SGML, on the
|
|
other hand, allows documents to be marked up for structure and content,
|
|
rather than for formatting. Formatting is done later, when the document
|
|
source is processed to produce the various output formats. SGML also
|
|
allows for far more verbose markup, meaning that there is more that can
|
|
be done with the structural information during processing.
|
|
|
|
DocBook is the best SGML DTD available for the creation of structurally
|
|
marked up documentation source.
|
|
|
|
> For me at least, I've always been interested in a system where the content
|
|
> and retrevial engine are very integrated. It still can and should be
|
|
> open, but such a system has many benifits for the end user. Realize that
|
|
> I'm not talking about so much about the markup of the document, but rather
|
|
> the storage and retrieval of the document itself.
|
|
|
|
Hm. Could you explain this a bit more? I think I know what you're
|
|
getting at, but I want to make sure before I comment.
|
|
|
|
> I would assume though that it would be quite
|
|
> possible for someone to develop a web form or the like that the writer can
|
|
> fill out to create a DocBook compliant article for the small stuff.
|
|
|
|
It's possible, but would be unnecessarily complicated. DocBook allows
|
|
you to mark up far more than just "author", "title" and "paragraph".
|
|
You can mark up filenames, directory names, screenshots and details,
|
|
tables, tables of contents, index words, lists, commands, command-lines,
|
|
command-line options, replaceable values, environment variables...and so
|
|
on and so on.
|
|
|
|
Creating a web-based editor for even the simplest of DocBook documents
|
|
would be significantly complicated. Also, many people (myself included)
|
|
don't care for web-based editing tools (it's my biggest gripe with Zope,
|
|
actually). Finally, there are a number of editing tools already
|
|
available that are being improved to better support DocBook, including
|
|
psgml (emacs), and LyX. Again, simple is better, and in this case it
|
|
would be unnecessary to reinvent the wheel.
|
|
|
|
Mozilla is going to offer some very interesting possibilities for the
|
|
creation of an editor and processing tools, as well. Mozilla is far
|
|
more than just a web browser.
|
|
|
|
> I've seen situations where the author chose not to pick a good license and
|
|
> it ended up causing a lot of problems.
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, that's simply part of the game. Sometimes people will
|
|
choose bad licenses. And they are (and must remain) free to do so.
|
|
This whole thing is about freedom. We cannot lose sight of that.
|
|
|
|
> Also lack of standardized licenses prevents a centralized repository which
|
|
> is desperately needed. You can't expect end users to look at 20 different
|
|
> sites looking for one answer just because some dufus couldn't pick a good
|
|
> license.
|
|
|
|
We don't need a centralized repository, we need a centralized index.
|
|
The Open Source Research Team is making very exciting progress in this
|
|
area with their meta-information project.
|
|
|
|
> I guess I don't know how to do the standardization required to pull this
|
|
> off without creating a dedicated oversight committee to manage it.
|
|
|
|
It's simply a matter of scope. We do not need a centralized
|
|
repository. We do not need to standardize licenses. What we need to do
|
|
is discuss the possibility of cooperatively developing a set of open
|
|
standards for Open Source documentation. Within Linux, that can be the
|
|
LSB. Within the Open Source community as a whole, all we need is a
|
|
mailing list on which a sufficient number of different projects will
|
|
actively discuss these issues.
|
|
|
|
Another committee is unnecessary, and would only serve to further
|
|
complicate the situation, both practically and politically.
|
|
|
|
> That's one reason why I'm against a distributed system. You can build
|
|
> such a system in a monolithic manner. Making it distributed is
|
|
> significantly more complicated.
|
|
|
|
Not really. Open Source documentation already exists in a distributed
|
|
system. All we need to do is develop a centralized index so people can
|
|
easily find the information they're looking for. The OSRT
|
|
(<A HREF="http://www.metalab.unc.edu/osrt">http://www.metalab.unc.edu/osrt</A>) has already made significant progress
|
|
towards making this a reality.
|
|
|
|
> It's already unmanageable- do a search on Yahoo for some linux related
|
|
> question- "Linux pop3 server" returns 13,000+ hits.
|
|
|
|
Thus the need for the OSRT's card catalog. It's more than just a search
|
|
engine. Their meta-information project promises to create a
|
|
comprehensive and extremely powerful resource for open source
|
|
documentation. As Paul mentioned, they're politically and
|
|
technologically neutral, and they're working with open standards to
|
|
produce some remarkable tools.
|
|
|
|
Really, you should go check it out :)
|
|
|
|
(Paul, maybe you could give us a rundown about the project? I'd also be
|
|
interested in knowing how the meta-info project is progressing and if
|
|
there's any way we (that's a rather general "we") can help).
|
|
|
|
- deb
|
|
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
Deb Richardson, Executive Editor
|
|
Linuxcare, Inc.
|
|
tel: 613.562.9723, fax: 613.562.9304
|
|
deb@linuxcare.com, <A HREF="http://www.linuxcare.com">http://www.linuxcare.com</A>
|
|
|
|
Linuxcare. At the Centre of Linux.
|
|
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org
|
|
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|
|
|
|
</pre>
|
|
|
|
<!--X-Body-of-Message-End-->
|
|
<!--X-MsgBody-End-->
|
|
<!--X-Follow-Ups-->
|
|
<hr>
|
|
<ul><li><strong>Follow-Ups</strong>:
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><strong><a name="01019" href="msg01019.html">Re: [oswg-dis] Re: Open Document Environment (ODE)</a></strong>
|
|
<ul><li><em>From:</em> "Jeremy D. Zawodny" <Jeremy@Zawodny.com></li></ul></li>
|
|
</ul></li></ul>
|
|
<!--X-Follow-Ups-End-->
|
|
<!--X-References-->
|
|
<ul><li><strong>References</strong>:
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><strong><a name="01003" href="msg01003.html">Re: [oswg-dis] Re: Open Document Environment (ODE)</a></strong>
|
|
<ul><li><em>From:</em> Aaron Turner <aturner@linuxkb.org></li></ul></li>
|
|
</ul></li></ul>
|
|
<!--X-References-End-->
|
|
<!--X-BotPNI-->
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>Prev by Date:
|
|
<strong><a href="msg00993.html">ode-discuss archives</a></strong>
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li>Next by Date:
|
|
<strong><a href="msg01019.html">Re: [oswg-dis] Re: Open Document Environment (ODE)</a></strong>
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li>Previous by thread:
|
|
<strong><a href="msg01001.html">Re: [oswg-dis] Re: Open Document Environment (ODE)</a></strong>
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li>Next by thread:
|
|
<strong><a href="msg01019.html">Re: [oswg-dis] Re: Open Document Environment (ODE)</a></strong>
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li>Index(es):
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a href="maillist.html#00997"><strong>Date</strong></a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="threads.html#00997"><strong>Thread</strong></a></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<!--X-BotPNI-End-->
|
|
<!--X-User-Footer-->
|
|
<!--X-User-Footer-End-->
|
|
</body>
|
|
</html>
|