| 1 |
Luca Barbato wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> I'm afraid you are mixing up emails from this thread. I got |
| 5 |
>>> complaints about how wrongly the PMS is written, e.g. academic paper |
| 6 |
>>> markup vs plain text, natural language used to specify syntax while a |
| 7 |
>>> grammar notation like EBNF would be better suited, when I asked |
| 8 |
>>> people why so few were contributing about this document. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> Mmm, and how many people claiming that have suggested specific |
| 11 |
>> improvements or pointed out specific complaints? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> You got some right here. Feel free to address them. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
>> So how, specifically, is PMS "wrongly written", and why hasn't anyone |
| 16 |
>> who thinks so bothered to provide details? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> - rewrite it as an rfc using a markup among xmlrfc, docbook, guidexml. |
| 19 |
... add DITA to the list. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Sorry, but I think it is not fair to make such requests AFTER the document |
| 22 |
is written. That should've been done when the work started and the council |
| 23 |
should have made the decision that only a PMS written using GuideXML (or |
| 24 |
whatever) will be accepted. Lack of specification is not the failure of the |
| 25 |
ones who did the work. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives