Re: Docbook tools

["David C. Mason" <dcm@redhat.com>]

Eric Bischoff <ebisch@cybercable.tm.fr> writes:


> > It is unfair to compare a system like RPM to tar.gz or other
> > archiving/compression formats. RPMs *add* functionality, thus
> > sometimes larger files. Mark is working on other packages.
> 
> Maybe you misunderstood me. I was wondering why putting both the 3.0 and the 3.1
> versions in the same RPM. Why not only the 3.1 version ? I was in no way
> comparing RPMs to tarballs. I should have said "RPM packages" and not "RPM
> archives".

I most definitely did misunderstand you. I can try to blame it on my
illness over the weekend or I can just apologize... sorry.


> > As to the CKVJ languages, there is now support for Japanese in DocBook
> > but you will need to write language files for other languages. These
> > files are part of the Stylesheets and are really quite easy to write
> > as long as you have someone who knows the language.
> 
> We have such people at KDE. Errr... what does CKVJ stand for ?

Mark is right.. Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Japanese. For your
information, this is how Asian languages have been referred to over the
years in the world of i18n. In fact, there is a very *complete* book
put out by O'Reilly about i18n called CKVJ that you can recommend to
anyone who is doing work on unicode support et al.


> 
> > Good Luck, its great to see you guys moving to DocBook, this is a
> > great step for your project and mine(GNOME) to start sharing things
> > like a help browser backend.
> 
> I fully support the policy of making KDE and GNOME as much compatible as we
> can, I am very happy to meet you on this mailing list, and I hope we will have
> the occasion to help one another many times again. The BIG conversion from
> linuxdoc to docbook at KDE is to take place in very short time now.
> 

Well I hope we can make the two desktops as compatible as possible,
but if not, we can at least keep the documentation side together. Just
for your information I took a look at the new KDE help browser and
there are many things I like about it. We are close to embarking on
our own *real* effort at a help browser with two key
features...hopefully these projects can share some attributes.

The two key features of our help browser will most likely be [a]
Mozilla based display. This is why we have no real help browser, we
want to use the Mozilla Gecko engine to display the content..so we
wait. [b]We are now leaning toward using XML instead of html for the
online content. That way we can build feature rich searching and
indexing based on content. We will keep the ability to view html based
help but we really want to explore the possibilities of content based
searching the way it was always meant to be.

Some things to think about.


Cheers,

Dave


-- 

          David Mason
        Red Hat AD Labs

        dcm@redhat.com