xml or html for Ubuntu Guides

[Matthew East]

On Sun, 2005-12-04 at 10:55 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
> Le samedi 03 décembre 2005 à 12:42 +0000, Matthew East a écrit :
> > On Sat, 2005-12-03 at 08:57 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > Le vendredi 02 décembre 2005 à 17:14 +0000, Matthew East a écrit :

> > > > * Greater loading speed (this is the killer for me) - Yelp renders in
> > > > html, and therefore converts xml to html using its own stylesheets when
> > > > you load a document. The time it takes to load pages from xml in yelp is
> > > > probably enough to put the user off the help entirely! If we ship html,
> > > > the xml->html conversion is undergone in the build process, which means
> > > > that the document opens instantly.
> > > 
> > > Is the speed loading difference important?
> > 
> > I think it is: slow loading static help pages are a turn off for (at
> > least some) users, those users will go on irc or the forum. If
> > everything else is equal and the alternatives are (a) fast, or (b) slow,
> > then I would obviously go with (a) :)
> 
> I agree that slow loading is not good. But can we have some figures? Is
> it that slow? :-)

Yes: just try it. Both formats are in the dapper package.

> > > > * minor advantages - same format as kubuntu docs, we can put the same
> > > > format on help.ubuntu.com as we put in the distribution.
> > > 
> > > I think we can put the xml files on the website. Or we can simply
> > > convert them in html, it's not that hard :-)
> > 
> > Most web browsers that I know don't read xml. We currently convert them
> > to html [1], [2], and [3], that was my point.
> 
> Err... A search for "mozilla xml" gives me
> See http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2000/03/29/tutorial/

Well, try opening an xml document in your web browser. The ones I have
installed (epiphany, firefox) don't read it out of the box.

> > [3] http://help.ubuntu.com
> > 
> > > The best option to me would be to go with xml, but if it's too
> > > difficult, switch to html 2 months before the release, eg.
> > 
> > You didn't bring any reasons in favour of shipping in xml? Why do you
> > prefer that?
> 
> Well, xml is more generic. If we keep xml, we can do more things with
> the installed files. If we go with html, you'll be sure that you will
> just display it the way it is and you won't do anything else with it.

What do you envisage doing with the xml in the installed system? I
should clarify: we write the documents in xml, so we have the
flexibility to do anything with those files in the build process. I
really can't see a single thing that we'd want to do with the xml in the
_installed system_.

Matt
-- 
mdke at ubuntu.com
gnupg pub 1024D/0E6B06FF
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-desktop/attachments/20051204/48c74a75/attachment.pgp