Re: [xmlroff] xmlroff's "story"?

[Stefan S. <se...@sy...>]

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