Doc BoF at EuroBSDCon

[Murray Stokely]

On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 09:10:17PM +0100, Simon L. Nielsen wrote:
> > >   - des agreed to make a script for the actual conversion of the files
> > >     from SGML to XML.
> > 
> > What new applications do people have in mind that this enables?
> 
> I must admit that I don't have any specific plans.

In general I think sweeping changes like this just look like busy work
in less you've got plans for enabling some cool new functionality with
them.  If you don't know what such a change would gain for us, we're
better off spending that amount of time writing new documentation.

> > Is the plan to phase out DSSSL at this point?  The stylesheet work
> > should be more difficult than converting SGML files to XML, but it's
> > not mentioned here.
> 
> I have not personally looked into the specific toolchain issues.  The
> last time I chekked DSSSL was still required for print (ps/pdf/etc.)
> output, though HTML could be done entirely with XSL.

Well, yes, the toolchain issues are where all the work needs to be
done.  PassiveTeX can do a decent job, and RenderX allows for some
really cool print output functionality that jade is missing.

> When you get to that point I don't think it matters much (both for
> SGML and XML), it's mostly with regard to make(1) the diretories cause
> problems.

Directories do not cause problems with make.  We use them all over the
src/ tree and have been doing so for 20 years.  A few changes were
recently made that were not correct.  Those should be fixed or backed
out until they can be done properly, there is no problem with make and
subdirectories, only with a few broken commits.

> > and the directories
> > provide a natural place for the language-specific image files for a
> > given chapter.
> 
> Yes, that is a plus.  A minus IMO is when dealing patches, you very
> often can't just "cd foo/bar/handbook ; patch </foo.patch" since the
> patch is often relative to the chaptor subdir.  I know it's a minor
> thing, but it still bugs me often.

Consider using the -p option to patch.

Your same argument could be used for collapsing many of the
directories in src/sys and throughout the rest of the system, but I
don't think we need to flatten our namespace like that.

> Certainly.  I just think they are more painful than useful, which is
> why I brought it up as a possibility at the BOF.

I think you are in the minority with that opinion, but it's certainly
good to brainstorm.

- Murray