[Digikam-users] Users manual?

[Gilles Caulier]

2010/1/6 David Talmage <talmage at acm.org>:
>
>
> On Wed Jan  6 12:39 , Tom Cloyd <tomcloyd at comcast.net> sent:
>
>
>> ...
>>Maybe (I don't know) it would be best to port the document to a better
>>known platform - possibly mediawiki or something like that? Docbook is
>>not know well outside of the professional/serious-amateur programming
>>community, I think. It looks to me like there's a choice to be made:
>>
>>1. Retain docbook format (which I for one do not know and not eager to
>>have to learn - I just don't have any more free time to allocate), so
>>that one can have a portable stand-alone document for packaging, etc.
>>2. Port document to easily managed web-only platform which employs
>>readily understandable text entry functionality (some kind of embedded
>>WYSIWYG text input tool), so that minimally computer literate folks who
>>can think, write, and contribute could jump on board the contribution train.
>> ...
>
> There is already at least one way to convert docbook to HTML.  See
> http://wiki.docbook.org/topic/Html2DocBook.  You might also look at
> http://wiki.docbook.org/topic/DocBookPublishingTools.
>
> I won't estimate the amount of work it would take to convert the existing docbook
> files to Mediawiki or what have you.  However, the document already exists in
> docbook form.  Someone would have to do that conversion if it can't be done
> automatically.  That's time better spent on other things.  I don't think you have
> time for that, Mr. Cloyd. :-)
>
> Instead of converting to another format and instead of learning docbook, why not
> (1) leverage the work that exists and (2) work as a team to update the
> documentation?  Some people can write the new text for the documentation.  Other
> people can put the new text into docbook.
>

Exactly. This is the right way. i need doc writter in fact... I can
include all works to handbook later

Gilles Caulier