Re: Rep:Re: Permission to submit HOWTO

[Martin WHEELER <mwheeler@startext.co.uk>]

On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 pac1@tiac.net wrote:

> Preckshot's got it right.

You're entitled to your opinion.  (Nevertheless, I suspect that few on
this list would agree with you.)


> Doc book and SGML and the way they're being used ...

Err ... would you care to elucidate on this distinction you make ?


> Trouble is that the information you're putting in the resulting
> documents is also needed in other input formats.  Not just additional
> output formats.

"is also needed"?  Don't you mean "also exists"?  If not, your logic is 
not clearly expressed, and you are not communicating.


>  The information you're working with to produce a
> document is also needed in completely different structures than the ones
> you create in SGML and DOCBOOK.

Again, what distinction are you trying to make?
Further, you now appear to be talking about output, not input.
Please express your thoughts clearly.
And yet again, you say "needed".  Why "needed"?  *What* is the
necessity?


>  This is what P.'s been trying to tell you.

I'm afraid that P. has *never* tried to tell us anything.  And you are
making the same mistake as everyone else on this list if you think he
has.  It is almost certain that the prime reason that articulate human
language was evolved was in order for individuals in a group to assert
their social dominance -- to define their place in the tribal pecking
order.  Higher language skills equals higher ranking order.  Spoken 
human language is still used principally for this purpose.  P. uses his
contributions to this list exclusively in this way, and that
is the *only* thing he is "telling" us.  Gorillas go in for
chest-beating; chimpanzees give foot-drunmming displays; P. writes
e-mails to a captive audience.  Sock them over the head with sufficient
verbiage and you assert your position of dominance within the group.
(Never mind whether the verbiage makes sense or not, is truthful or not
-- it's volume and quantity that counts.)
Unfortunately there's always the crafty little sods in the background
who marshall rational thought and use intelligence rather than brute
strength / volume.
Experience shows intelligence always wins out :)


>  Listen.  I hope you can start discussing ideas about the structure
> of information pertaining to Linux

Yes.  Let's.  Never mind the fact that it's got absolutely sweet FA to
do with providing printable textual documentation describing the nature
and operation of a computer OS; or what the LDP aims to achieve, or
anything like that: let's discuss the structure of information.  (What
it pertains to is largely immaterial, if all you're discussing is
structure.)
And no regurgitated Shannon, please.


>   We need to examine new uses for the
> information

Why?  What's so good -- or helpful -- about novelty?  If it's done
purely and simply for the love of novelty?  What does it bring to the
current needs of the LDP work schedule? 


> if Docbook can be refined and extended 

... then it is no longer DocBook  :o


> In any case, Docbook and SGML ...

There you go again.  Just what distinction *do* you make?


>   Now let's move on and define the future.

Why?  We've got an unfinished job to complete.  The tools are in
place; we've made a common decision to use them; and we know how to get
on with the job.  Why the hurry to rush off and play with the undefined
all of a sudden?  Are you serious about providing decent
documentation; or is it that you're put off by the hard work involved
and just want to play information scientist and nothing more?

msw
-- 
Martin Wheeler         -         StarTEXT - Glastonbury - BA6 9PH - England
[1] mwheeler@startext.co.uk                      http://www.startext.co.uk/


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org