RFE: Mozilla release notes should be written in DocBook. This would allow a more flexible handling of various issues like: - generate per-build release notes which are specific for that OS/platform, even vendor-specific changes won't be a problem anymore - the release notes could be split over many small files instead of having one horrible large piece of HTML code - clean seperation from content and style - docbook-to-html convertion can handle the use of multiple alternative styles ("normal", "compact", "full", "printing", etc.) - docbook allowed to generate an index/overview automagically - no more dead links - no more invalid HTML code etc. etc.
Assignee: rudman → asa
suggest wonfix from what I read in n.p.m.documentation newsgroup, there's strong resistance among d11n contribuotrs to use DocBook -> mozilla.org (d11n:user is for Help conents)
Assignee: asa → endico
Component: User → email@example.com
Product: Documentation → mozilla.org
QA Contact: rudman → imajes
Summary: RFE: Mozilla release notes should be written in DocBook → Mozilla release notes should be written in DocBook
Version: unspecified → other
Agreed that this should be Wontfix. The subject of DocBook has come up in the past. DocBook presents too many hurdles to contributors. It would be overkill to use for the release notes, despite the attractive reasons for using DocBook as provided by the bug reporter. DocBook would be more meaningful for producing a single-sourced, multiple format/output, large suite of documentation. And even there, the high barrier to entry for contributors (lack of tools, new technology to learn) is largely prohibitive.
rudman wrote: > Agreed that this should be Wontfix. How would you fix the problems I listed in my first comment? The current release notes are a horrible mess from both content (much stuff is incomplete and outdated) and used HTML code. And the source file has become _huge_, IMHO splitting it into multiple parts won't harm... but... HTML does not support splitting of one document into smaller pieces and then display them as one piece. > The subject of DocBook has come up in the past. DocBook presents too many > hurdles to contributors. It would be overkill to use for the release notes, > despite the attractive reasons for using DocBook as provided by the bug > reporter. DocBook would be more meaningful for producing a single-sourced, > multiple format/output, large suite of documentation. And even there, the high > barrier to entry for contributors (lack of tools, new technology to learn) is > largely prohibitive. Er... why are other projects like Gnome, KDE, Xfree86, Linux etc. and companies like IBM, Sun etc. then able to use DocBook? Obviously their contributors/engineers have no problems with using DocBook (de-facto industry standard for (computer/engineering) documentation), even for stuff like _small_ Unix manual pages. At it is much better than using the homegrown junk of HTML code we're currently having in the release notes. And the "switch over" to DocBook could be "done" incrementally, e.g. we could use a "HTML-like" subset for the first version and then - step-by-step - refine that work.
I have neither an opinion on this (I'm not a Mozilla developer) nor any authority over a decision here. But just for the record, we use Docbook for the documentation for Bugzilla, and it works well for us. We have a relatively short, sweet tutorial on how to set it up in the root of our docs directory. http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/webtools/bugzilla/docs/README.docs The main hurdle is getting the software installed. Once it's up and running editing the files isn't much worse than HTML. But the big thing is you don't even need the software to be able to edit the sgml/xml files, you only need the software to compile the final product. We take lots of sgml patches from contributors that need tweeking to get them to compile. :) That's the job for our docs guy to compile it, the contributors basically provide content.
can't set this to future. -> nobody . We have other higher priority bugs
Assignee: endico → nobody
QA Contact: imajes → nobody
even better, ->wontfix. As long as I'm involved in the release notes, they're not going to docbook. sorry.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 15 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Product: mozilla.org → Websites
Component: www.mozilla.org → General
Product: Websites → www.mozilla.org
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.