Using userbase for manuals

Ingo Malchow imalchow at
Sun Jul 1 21:26:22 BST 2012

Hash: SHA1

Am 01.07.2012 21:56, schrieb Chusslove Illich:
>> [: Burkhard Lück :] That's really crazy [...] similar to Yuri I
>> found it easy to write docbook markup.
> While to me Docbook is simply less bad than other things, so I use
> Docbook when I want to document something about software (if I
> didn't need HTML pages, I'd use Latex instead). And when Martin
> says "we will even have WYSIWYG editors [for wiki editing]", my
> skin starts crawling, yet he is looking forward to it. The point
> is, different people like different things.
> I argue that it is of outer importance that the documentation
> writer uses the writing *concept* suitable to own taste (WYSIWYG
> vs. WYSIWYM, markup type, etc.), and only within that writing
> concept, look for particular formats and workflows.
> I further argue that, if people who are accustomed to version
> control find web-something-thingy (such as wiki) optimal for their
> documentation writing workflow, something has gone horribly wrong;
Sorry, not sure i get you here. Do you mean a certain location for
version control? Because, wikis provide version control since the
beginning, and you can roll back to any point if you wish.

> and that efficiency of writing and maintenance, as well as
> documentation availability, will suffer because of it. Instead,
> they should keep documentation tight to their sources, and in
> format which best fits their writing concept. For example, there 
> certainly exist wiki-like "offline" markups that can be converted
> to HTML pages (e.g. Markdown). I think we should encourage people
> to experiment in this direction, rather than press "learn
> Docbook".

- -- 
Ingo Malchow

Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -


More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list