<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 5:45 AM, Tomeu Vizoso <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tomeu@sugarlabs.org">tomeu@sugarlabs.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 21:47, Sayamindu Dasgupta <<a href="mailto:sayamindu@gmail.com">sayamindu@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> [Jumping into the discussion midway]:<br>
><br>
> From an l10n point of view, I would highly recommend adopting (and<br>
> perhaps extending) the GNOME documentation framework. It is docbook<br>
> based, which is a format pretty easy to pick up (and I believe<br>
> OpenOffice.org can also export to docbook - though I have never tried<br>
> it out).<br>
<br>
</div>Well, I think it was a decision by the people who wrote the manual to<br>
use floss manuals, I guess it would be up to them which tool they use.<br>
And in the same way, translators would choose the tools that best suit<br>
them. I think that floss manuals has already tools for translation and<br>
also think that people have worked on a translation to spanish, Maybe<br>
we should ask to those people which was their experience with the<br>
floss manuals tool set?<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Tomeu<br>
</font><div></div></blockquote><div><br><br>The difference AFAIK was that FM offered pretty strong print-ability as a wiki-pdf solution. They also have a very reasonable WYSIWYG editor on their twiki. Does the GNOME doc framework support this? I haven't explored it.<br>
</div></div><br>