Re: DTD Versions

[Poet/Joshua Drake <poet@linuxports.com>]

Hello,

As long as we don't use tags that specifically say "deprecated" we should
be alright, for example using <mediaobject> instead of <graphic>

Joshua Drake






On Sat, 3 Jun 2000, Frederik Fouvry wrote:

<CITE>
<CITE>,-- On Fri, 2 Jun, you wrote:
<CITE>| 
<CITE>| Hello,
<CITE>| 
<CITE>| I don't know about the rest of you but I think we should ONLY accept
<CITE>| Docbook 3.1 at this time. It is the only official version. 4.0 is still in
<CITE>| beta and we can't have a bunch of different markup running around.
<CITE>| 
<CITE>| J
<CITE>
<CITE>Since about two weeks this is not true anymore.  But you're right
<CITE>about sticking to 3.1 for the time being.  The differences are not
<CITE>_that_ big anyway, and careful markup can make the transition even
<CITE>easier.
<CITE>
<CITE>--
<CITE>Frederik Fouvry		-	fouvry@sfs.nphil.uni-tuebingen.de
<CITE>KDE DocBook Team	-	kde-docbook@master.kde.org
<CITE>

-- 
--
<COMPANY>CommandPrompt	- http://www.commandprompt.com	</COMPANY>
<PROJECT>OpenDocs, LLC.	- http://www.opendocs.org	</PROJECT>
<PROJECT>LinuxPorts 	- http://www.linuxports.com     </PROJECT>
<WEBMASTER>LDP		- http://www.linuxdoc.org	</WEBMASTER>
--
Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," 
start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom. 
--


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-docbook-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org