This is part of The Pile, a partial archive of some open source mailing lists and newsgroups.
Subject: Re: Bugzilla 3.0 Requirements Draft 2 From: "Matthew P. Barnson" <barnboy@imall.com> Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:11:23 -0600 On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, Henri Sivonen scratched this in the dirt: > > * Users Guide, incorporating Bugzilla HOW-TO, completed in SGML > > and available in TXT, SGML, PDF, etc. > > and HTML? :-) Why SGML and not XML? I'll field this one, since I'm the one writing it, and the one who'll be maintaining it. I chose SGML for the following reasons: 1. The Linux Documentation Project (LDP), at http://www.linuxdoc.org, does not yet use XML. They use the DocBook standard, the XML version of which is very immature. They do not yet accept DocBook XML. 2. I want/need to submit the Bugzilla guide as The Bugzilla HOWTO to the LDP so it is included with future Linux distributions. This move will grow Bugzilla usage enormously, IMHO. 3. At some point in the future, I will probably convert to XML -- when the Linux Documentation Project does. 4. Currently, SGMl has the most filters I've ever seen for converting documents to other formats. It is *trivial* to export to HTML, XML, PDF, RTF, TXT, TeX, and othe formats. This largely comes from it's venerable legacy. I would prefer the documentation be stored soleley in SGML with the distribution, but a CGI can convert it to PDF et al on the fly for download via the web interface. Not there yet, but coming! I will probably only include SGML, HTML, and TXT with the distribution, since they are small. 5. When run through Jade, SGML is easily formattable to HTML and will allow me to create more context-sensitive help throughout Bugzilla. I hope this answers your question somewhat. I've actually been arguing this for 6 months, and did the initial documentation in HTML. HTML sucks for documentation, though, so really the choices boiled down to XML, TeX, and SGML -- I felt SGML was the most maintainable right now. ===