Re: xmlroff's "story"?

Chris Bowditch wrote:
> Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> 
> 
>> While I think that porting to cygwin may be reasonable (and not involve
>> much work), I don't think that a native port is such a good idea at this
>> time. It would definitely be useful, but it requires substantial work,
>> and so I think focussing on missing features on a single platform (or
>> set of platforms) will be more valuable in the short term.
> 
> 
> I disagree here. By implementing a complete port to Windows, a lot more 
> users will be attracted to xmlroff. More users, in turn means more 
> contributors, which in turn means more features for xmlroff.

Well, this is a tradeoff, of course. But given the amount of work to do
a full port, compared to the available work force, I believe it is much
less efford (all relative, of course) to get xmlroff into a truely usable
state where docbook et al. are more popular, and thus xmlroff would have
a much bigger impact.

On the other hand, if part of the efford to port xmlroff to windows-native
is to strip off dependencies (such as glib and the whole GObject system),
that would have multiple benefits.

Regards,
		Stefan



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642