[07:19] good evening! [10:18] gmendoza: good morning :) [11:56] I was reading bug 478097 and wondered where you keep the style sheets that convert docbook xml to xhtml? [11:56] Launchpad bug 478097 in ubuntu-docs (Ubuntu) (and 1 other project) "help.ubuntu.com claims to be XHTML 1.0 Transitional but is not (affects: 1)" [Wishlist,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/478097 === cjohnston is now known as wikipirate [13:08] I was reading bug 478097 and wondered where I could find the style sheets that convert docbook xml to xhtml? [13:08] Launchpad bug 478097 in ubuntu-docs (Ubuntu) (and 1 other project) "help.ubuntu.com claims to be XHTML 1.0 Transitional but is not (affects: 1)" [Wishlist,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/478097 === lukjad007 is now known as ` === ` is now known as Guest60086 === Guest60086 is now known as lukjad007 [16:08] mdke, ha! :-) [16:23] hey gmendoza , i commented on your patch [16:24] Hey thanks. I just saw Connor comments and was working on the corrections. [16:24] that would be me [16:24] hehe yes yes... hehe thanks, man. [16:25] sure thing, good work [16:25] cool deal... so I'll spare the email for this question... I have been having trouble causing the validate to show a problem... did you use any special flags to cross-reference the other xml files? [16:26] I'd hate to be a repeat offender.. :-P [16:27] no, what command are you using [16:27] from the parent directory, I just ran ./scripts/validate.sh serverguide/C/network-config.xml [16:27] ah, that is your problem, it is confusing [16:27] and it came up with no erros... could i be the diff I gave you? [16:28] you don't necessarily validate the file you're working on (in many cases, it will fail validation when it is actually correct, and vice versa) [16:28] haha... awesome. [16:28] you validate the parent file, which in this case is serverguide.xml (it's always named the same as the directory) [16:29] well what do ya know... hehe that works. [16:29] thanks man... thats gonna help a lot. [16:30] np [16:31] and I really appreciate the help with the rest. Fresh eyes on something you're hyper-focused is very helpful. I'm making the modifications right now. [16:35] I'm wondering whether we should get the server team more closely involved with reviewing and approving patches for the serverguide [16:36] it's so complex now that I'm not sure ubuntu-doc has the expertise to maintain it on our own [16:38] mdke, well I do think there's just a lot to maintain. I think there's quite a bit that can be shaved off and make it more focused, rather than a collection of every blog on the net and how to install X, Y and Z. [16:38] yes, maybe that's right too [16:39] The old link title fro the main index was "Installing server applications", but once you got the the guide, the main index title was "Ubuntu Server Guide". The former may have lent to many of the entries we see today. [16:41] Perhaps we should be referencing external documentation more [16:41] The problem I see is that many of the applications are modified often, so we could be left with an exhaustive list of corrections to be made with each release. [16:42] Rocket2DMn, I agree. [16:43] any app that requires serious configuration, like apache, should just reference their own pages [16:43] some stuff, like maybe setting up networking, is OK to keep internal [16:43] I don't know if the fact that it's hard to keep something up to date is necessarily a reason not to include it at all, but I feel that the server team would have a lot of expertise to bring [16:44] mdke, agreed. [16:44] excuse me while i step away to eat my soup [16:46] Rocket2DMn, for example, a LAMP install... it would be best to use the "tasksel" method... rather than simply a lits of all packages to apt-get install. Mayeba simple reference to where the files are located, how to enable and disable a site, modules, etc... then link to external documentation for the rest. [16:47] I havent checked the apache documentation.. so not sure if thats what it is currently... hehe... just an example. [17:00] gmendoza, yes that is true, tasksel is better [17:03] Rocket2DMn, so regarding the long strings... in this case, I don't believe wrapping would be allowed. So leaving it as is is okay even though it runs off the page? [17:04] "as-is" would have been easier to read that sentence. [17:04] hehe [17:06] maybe a displainmer that says to read our docs you need a minimum 24" monitor. [17:06] ack [17:06] disclaimer even [17:06] hehe [17:13] gmendoza, it would be niec if it could be wrapped, but if it cant, it cant [17:14] yup. np. [17:21] Rocket2DMn, you think it's appropriate to delete the previous patch from launchpad and reattach the new version? [17:21] Rocket2DMn, or leave it for records? [17:22] it doesnt matter gmendoza [17:22] okay.. just wanted to be clear.