[TOS] Scribd

[tosmaillist.neophyte_rep at ordinaryamerican.net]

2010/6/28 Karsten Wade - kwade at redhat.com
<+tosmaillist+neophyte_rep+4c8a4e5c8a.kwade#redhat.com at spamgourmet.com>:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 05:42:29PM -0700, tosmaillist.neophyte_rep at ordinaryamerican.net wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Chris Tyler - chris at tylers.info wrote:
>> > A part of an earlier comment that got sniped is:
>> >
>> >> It's also been my experience that building data with a schedule-driven
>> >> choice of data manipulation tools locks in that tool set rather
>> >> permanently.  Few people like to transcribe a large set of data they
>> >> have spent precious time creating.
>> >
>> > I'm pretty confident that we're not locking ourselves into anything evil
>> > here -- DocBook is one of the most-transformable formats available.
>> >
>> > -Chris
>>
>> I'm sorry.  I had no intention of implying that the current tool set
>> and data formats used were in any way "evil".
>
> I'm sure Chris meant this in the colloquial sense, not the
> metaphysical.  Tools that work and play nicely with others are good,
> ones that don't are evil, etc.  In that sense, if using DocBook XML
> "locks in that tool set ... permanently", that would be evil, but not
> actually EVIL evil. ;-)  Fortunately, XML is great for transformation
> and is one reason we use it.
>
> - Karsten

I use "evil" infrequently because, to me, it is a strong word.

In any case, I am not criticizing the particular tools chosen.  I'm
suggesting an open discussion of the requirements would improve the
quality of the project.