[14:24] <seisen> When does the documentation for Hardy start?
[14:27] <nixternal> not for a while
[14:28] <nixternal> I would say at a minimum, if a lot of stuff doesn't change and the specs have been approved at UDS, we could probably start working on documentation in 2 months
[14:28] <nixternal> but we tend to wait until the last couple of months, that way there we no stuff won't change drastically...
[14:30] <jjesse> hopefully at UDS Boston I can get a start on things
[14:37] <nixternal> me too :)
[14:37] <nixternal> schoolio time...back later
[14:48] <seisen> I was just wondering so I could help with some of the little stuff
[14:56] <jjesse> seisen: you can start cleanning up th wiki
[14:57] <jjesse> which would be a great help
[14:57] <seisen> I have been cleaning the wiki up but lately I haven't had time
[14:58] <seisen> I know the wiki is a mess, but I do have two days off so maybe I can get some cleaning done this week
[14:59] <jjesse> cool good luck
[15:00] <seisen> I think some of the pages might just need the category cleanup tags removed because they have been cleaned up but the tags not removed
[15:04] <jjesse> wouldn't be suprised if that was all it took
[15:05] <seisen> some of them do need cleaned up like the one's for beryl because the repository are no longer available
[15:06] <seisen> then some are just a mess
[15:35] <billycina> hi there
[15:35] <jjesse_> hello
[15:35] <billycina> anybody know about new dtd requirements from  Gutsy
[15:35] <billycina> ie as of gutsy?
[15:35] <billycina> new version of docbook it seems
[15:36] <jjesse_> so the dtd that all the docs are getting is wrong/
[15:36] <billycina> yes
[15:36] <jjesse_> intersteing was not awaare of that
[15:37] <billycina> it's a real pain
[15:37] <jjesse_> so all the docs don't lookright?
[15:37] <billycina> errors all over the shop
[15:37] <jjesse_> grumble grumble
[15:37] <billycina> they can't 'make'
[15:37] <jjesse_> are they built correctly on a gutsy install?
[15:37]  * jjesse_ is at work and not on a gutsy box right now
[15:37] <billycina> they were built on feisty
[15:37] <billycina> and now we are reviewing on gutsy
[15:38] <billycina> and the doc are just not happy
[15:38] <jjesse_> that sucks
[15:38] <billycina>  i know
[15:38] <billycina> any solution you can think of?
[15:39] <jjesse_> not off the top of my head
[15:39] <billycina> any idea where i can look?
[15:40] <jjesse_> umm give me a bit to think
[15:40] <billycina> k - thanks
[15:41] <jjesse_> just to make sure i understand if i run the validate.sh script in the docteam svn it will give a ton of errors?
[15:46] <billycina> sounds about right - yes
[15:46] <billycina> you guys must use a different way of checking
[15:46] <billycina> i'm using bluefish
[15:47] <jjesse_> whenever i need to validate my docbook files i run the script that is in trunk
[15:47] <jjesse_> validate.sh
[15:47] <billycina> i think we are doing the same but in different means
[15:49] <popey> :(
[15:49] <billycina> popey: this is very annoying
[20:57] <TeTeT> jjesse_: I'll take a look at it
[22:25] <TeTeT> jjesse: after commenting out some, but not all <figure>s it compiles again
[22:31] <mdke> what's the error from validate.sh? The dtd in our documents hasn't changed, so upgrading to gutsy shouldn't change anything
[22:32] <mdke> I haven't seen any errors with making or validating
[22:35] <mdke> TeTeT: still around?
[22:35] <TeTeT> mdke: yes, I'm there, sorry
[22:35] <mdke> nothing to be sorry for :)
[22:35] <TeTeT> mdke: the validate.sh points to a number of issues
[22:36] <mdke> all documents?
[22:36] <TeTeT> mdke: one with use of para inside of screen, the other on figure
[22:36] <TeTeT> mdke: yep, maybe dblatex became more rigorous in 7.10
[22:36] <TeTeT> e.g. on feisty it builds, on gutsy it stops
[22:37] <mdke> TeTeT: can you give me an example of a document which gives the error with validate.sh?
[22:37] <mdke> i can't see any
[22:37] <TeTeT> mdke: I'm writing about the training course - basically none of the training documents validates ...
[22:38] <mdke> oh. The discussion above with jjesse seems to have been on the understanding that you were talking about our documents...
[22:39] <mdke> I suppose it's possible that your training documents use a different dtd declaration to ours...
[22:39] <TeTeT> mdke: nope, I was referring to the one with billycina
[22:39] <TeTeT> mdke: I hope not :)
[22:39] <mdke> 15:41:52 < jjesse_> just to make sure i understand if i run the validate.sh script in the docteam svn it will give a ton of errors?
[22:39] <mdke> 15:46:15 < billycina> sounds about right - yes
[22:39] <mdke> perhaps I misunderstood. So the dtd declaration is identical?
[22:40] <mdke> (to our documents)
[22:40] <TeTeT> mdke: seems we're using version 4.2 instead of 4.1.2
[22:40] <mdke> right
[22:41] <mdke> even so, shouldn't be radically different
[22:41] <TeTeT> yep
[22:42] <mdke> how were the documents created originally?
[22:42] <mdke> can I have a look at one?
[22:42] <TeTeT> mdke: sure, it's all on launchpad
[22:42] <TeTeT> https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~canonical-training/ubuntu-desktop-course/ubuntu-desktop-course-beta
[22:43] <TeTeT> mdke: we've advised our training partner to use the doc teams docbook tags and stay with this
[22:43] <TeTeT> mdke: unfortunately it's a rough ride for everybody involved
[22:43] <mdke> I wonder if the documents were created using a program or something which has made a mistake
[22:43] <TeTeT> e.g. in concern to content as well as xml
[22:43] <TeTeT> I'm pretty sure they have a human editing them, working from a template
[22:44] <TeTeT> I'm also pretty sure that the human editor is unaware of 'validation' or xmllint or anythinbg
[22:45] <mdke> I see.
[22:45] <mdke> we seem to use 4.3 in our documents
[22:45] <mdke> https://docteam.ubuntu.com/repos/trunk/ubuntu/internet/C/internet.xml
[22:46] <TeTeT> ok
[22:47] <TeTeT> grep -rh DOCTYPE * | sort | uniq
[22:47] <mdke> i wonder if there is a bug in the gutsy declaration of 4.2. Try 4.3
[22:47] <TeTeT> ok, most are 4.3
[22:48] <TeTeT> mdke: no change
[22:49] <mdke> perhaps the documents are just invalid
[22:49] <mdke> maybe they built on feisty notwithstanding the errors?
[22:49] <TeTeT> mdke: seems so
[22:49] <mdke> you're not using xsltproc?
[22:50] <TeTeT> mdke: I tend to agree, the docs were bad from the start and now gutsy has something more strict
[22:50] <TeTeT> mdke: we use xsltproc for the html and dblatex for PDF
[22:50] <TeTeT> http://codebrowse.launchpad.net/~canonical-training/ubuntu-desktop-course/ubuntu-desktop-course-beta/annotate/training%40canonical.com-20071022180423-h3gwq5lotyxdvwgz?file_id=makefile-20070927154211-pp53f1hz3isw2jtg-1
[22:51] <TeTeT> mdke: I'll probably take a look at the generated tex and see if I find the prob
[22:51] <mdke> yes, was just looking at that, sorry
[22:51] <mdke> xsltproc works?
[22:51] <TeTeT> anyway, need to call it a day, otherwise I'll have someone unhappy at home
[22:51] <TeTeT> mdke: yes, the HTML is there
[22:51] <mdke> ah, ok. blame dblatex definitely then
[22:52] <mdke> good night
[22:52] <TeTeT> mdke: will do :)
[22:52] <TeTeT> bye, and thanks!