Reading SGML would be the problem, though, unless it looks like HTML.

Job van Zuijlen

robbie@scot-mur.demon.co.uk wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> Why isn't the manual written using sgml or something? It would probably be
> much easier.
> 
> Regards
> 
> --

I suggested this a while back, but stopped far short of actually 
volunteering to help with the effort. An SGML source, with the right tools, 
could be used to generate HTML, PostScript, PDF, and probably a few other 
handy formats. What do Linux documentation folk use these days?

At 11:09 PM 9/9/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Reading SGML would be the problem, though, unless it looks like HTML.
>
>Job van Zuijlen
>
>robbie@scot-mur.demon.co.uk wrote:
>> 
>> Hi
>> 
>> Why isn't the manual written using sgml or something? It would probably be
>> much easier.
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> --
>> Rob Murray
>
>

David Drexler 

On Thu, Sep 09, 1999 at 11:09:23PM -0400, Job M. van Zuijlen wrote:
> Reading SGML would be the problem, though, unless it looks like HTML.
It is similar in syntax. But you don't read it directly, it can be
converted to html, dvi, ps, pdf, tex, text etc. It would be quite a lot of
work to convert the manual to sgml, so it might not be a good idea.
 > 
> Job van Zuijlen


--