[sylpheed:33101] Re: Sylpheed documentation (was: Sylpheed 2.7.0 released)
pknbe at volny.cz
Sun Jul 26 02:57:56 JST 2009
rhubbell <Rhubbell at iHubbell.com>, Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:32:44 -0700:
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:43:03 -0400
> Petr Kovar wrote:
> I think we should ask the maintainer of Sylpheed, H. Yamamoto, what
> document format would have the best chance of being released each time
> Sylpheed is released. If the answer is xml then that's what we do.
> And we start with an translation of the Japanese edition of the html pages
> using one of the online translators. I'm not a doc expert or even a novice
> but I'll try to help anyway. Doing a recursive wget of the translated
> page would be a starting point.
I very much agree that we need to know Hiro's view on the situation.
As he follows this list, he'll probably give us some insight as to
whether he's his own plans for the Sylpheed docs, or whether he seeks
Nevertheless, since the said SGML to XML migration has already begun some
time (well, years) ago, it'd be nothing but a step back to use completely
deprecated tools like linuxdoc SGML. It should be also said that at the
end, we need to work with the source documents anyway, as we only export
the documentation to HTML when we're finished.
> If the answer is something else then we figure it out. Just keep it
> simple. The simpler it is the more likely it will get done and be
> maintained. I say start easy/simple.
That's definitely true, and we should try to search for tools and work flow
processes that would suit needs of that not-so-big Sylpheed documentation
best. Perhaps have the not-so-skilled contributors work with plain text or
simple HTML, and then have the maintainer convert it to valid DocBook? Not
That being said, I'm playing with some fancy XML editors more or less
suitable for DocBook, like XXE, epcEdit or Vex, and hopefully find
something that is usable enough.
More information about the Sylpheed