This is the mail archive of the
docbook-tools-discuss@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the docbook-tools project.
Re: I'm trying to set up docbook-tools...
/ "Eric S. Raymond" <esr@thyrsus.com> was heard to say:
| I don't think anybody doubts that it was your intention to be clear.
| Your execution, however, completely failed in that respect. The
Completely? Thanks.
| failure seems to me to be an indicator of a wider problem in the
| technical culture surrounding SGML, one I've bitched about before.
Yes, you have.
| Two years ago, I complained vociferously on the DocBook list that the
| SGML culture had a pathological case of self-absorption and seemed to
And with such vitriol and ranting that several respectable members of
the list asked you to please be polite or go away.
| unable to explain. For bringing this unwelcome news, I was flamed and
| shunned.
Is that how you saw it. How, um, symmetrical.
| Can this be fixed? I don't know. The problem isn't any lack of
| intelligence or good intentions on the part of the DocBook group.
| There's something fundamentally disconnected and broken in the
| attitude department, though -- an inability to see what the SGML
| world looks like from the point of view of somebody who just
| wants to get some work done.
That's not really fair, IMHO. Two years ago, when you ranted on the
DocBook list, there *were no tool sets that we could point to*. SGML
was a build-it-yourself world.
Now, as I've said, thanks to the tremdous efforts of lots and lots of
people, we *do have tool sets* that we can point to. They aren't perfect
yet, they don't install easily enough, and they don't satisfy everyone.
But we've come a long way and the efforts continue.
Not only do I think the problem can be fixed, I'm confident it will
be.
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | The worst enemy of life, freedom and
http://nwalsh.com/ | the common decencies is total anarchy;
| their second worst enemy is total
| efficiency.--Aldous Huxley