| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:50:11 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> So how, specifically, is PMS "wrongly written", and why hasn't |
| 5 |
>>> anyone who thinks so bothered to provide details? |
| 6 |
>> - rewrite it as an rfc using a markup among xmlrfc, docbook, guidexml. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> What technical reason is there to use a markup that's more work for |
| 9 |
> those of us doing the writing? Writing XML is a huge pain in the ass |
| 10 |
> compared to latex. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
More people can understand those markups, they are consistent with the |
| 13 |
gentoo documentation, they look better on screen than on paper, tex is a |
| 14 |
great typesetting markup to write academic books. Right tool for the |
| 15 |
right task. It address the problem "PMS is anything but accessible" |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
>> - use EBNF when describing a syntax. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Is there any indication that this is any clearer? EBNF gets messy when |
| 21 |
> it comes to describing the whitespace rules, for example. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
It is less ambiguous than natural language. That solves the issue "The |
| 24 |
syntax is underspecified" |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
lu |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Luca Barbato |
| 31 |
Gentoo Council Member |
| 32 |
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC |
| 33 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives