RE: LinuxDoc DTD on NT

["Chris Campbell" <campbelc at infi dot net>]

well, I got an error message when I tried to remove myself from the list, so
I'm trying again. I feel compelled to respond here though. I have lurked
here for only about two months. My original query was how to take SGML-Tools
for NT *beyond* Hoenicka's excellent guide. I've used it. I have SGML-Tools
set up on my NT Workstation, and use it almost every day to generate
multiple versions of documents. I can take one doc and make an HTML page, a
PDF page and other formats easily. This is why I wanted it. It works, and it
works well. What I was hoping to do was to go *beyond* H's guide. I have a
need to create LinuxDoc documents. I have had no luck getting the LinuxDoc
to validate, though. I have added the LinuxDoc DTD to my NTEmacs menu, and
that works. I can seem to add elements based on the LinuxDoc rules, and that
works. But when I try to validate a LinuxDoc document, it tries to validate
it with the DocBook 3.1 rules, and I get nothing but errors. This is what I
was in need of help about. I *know* about the page that everyone seems to
want to point me too. It was helpful to set it all up, but now I'm past
that.
All I got for help, were three emails sent to me personally, not to the
list. One, the one who then responded in the list, 'spit on NT', and the
other two simply told me I shouldn't even be on the list, because it's for
SGML-Tools used by Linux.... ummmm no, it's not.
Think about how you would react? You write to a list, and get flamed in
private? Oh well, I'll figure out how to do it, and then I'll be able to
write my HOWTOs and submit them, and I no longer care if anyone else is
interested.
Hopefully my unsubscribe will take this time.
Best wishes,
Chris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sgml-tools-bounce@via.ecp.fr
> [mailto:sgml-tools-bounce@via.ecp.fr]On Behalf Of Peter Elliott
> Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 6:38 PM
> To: sgml-tools@via.ecp.fr
> Subject: Re: LinuxDoc DTD on NT
>
>
> Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@pasteur.fr>
> At 12:57 2/02/00 +0100, you wrote:
> >
> >		....SNIPT....
> >People who apologize should check facts before.
> >
> Generally i'd agree with you but this being cyberia it's not possible to
> run round the class and play tiresome detective routines. We have to take
> people's statements on trust else descend into bothersome paranoid
> behaviour (not talking software here).
> Given the circumstances i think it right that some of us felt compelled to
> ummm condemn the alledged off-list responses of some to a new
> question-asker.
> Perhaps it would be better if we responded to queries publicly rather than
> by private email??
> Those of us who've been subscribed for a while could perhaps get a sort of
> FAQ together if we were to become irritated by lots of repititious newbie
> type queries?
> These are just off the cuff thoughts and in no way an attack on your good
> self Stephane, ok?
> Pax
> pre
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ...to paraphrase Churchill, while representative  democracy may be
> terrible, it's still the best system that large corporations can buy.
> David Weinberger JOHO January 25, 2000
>
>
>
>