Wine Packaging Guide update

[Mike Hearn]

> NOTE: I am (was?) a strong believer in markup. I started this
>       work because I thought the document doesn't belong in the
>       Docu section, and needed updating, without being aware of
>       the potential problems with SGML. By the time I was done,
>       I was completely horrified by this SGML business. It has
>       it's advantages, but they come at a hefty price, so we
>       have to be very careful when we employ it. It works OK
>       for documents that don't require a lot of markup, like the
>       FAQ. In fact, in that case it _saves_ on formating markup.
>       It works nicely for documents that are essentially books
>       (such as the User Guide, etc.) where you can expect someone
>       to print out the nicely formatted .pdf/.ps. However, for
>       technical documents that need to be maintained often, and
>       are useful as a online resource that people are likely to
>       open in an editor, it blows chunks. Now I start to understand
>       Alexandre's preference for troff for man pages...

Hehe, I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks DocBook is overrated -
I've been wrestling with it for the past few weeks as part of writing a
shared packaging metadata spec, and an automatic documentation framework
for bash libraries, and I have NEVER got it to work correctly.

I've found that clean HTML with some small CSS can make a document that
looks more professional (imo) and is far easier to read in a text
editor, not least because emacs (and i assume vim) can apply the
formatting in the tags to the text itself.

I've never looked at troff, but free software seems to need a better
documentation/markup system - DocBook SGML just seems far, far too
complex for doing something that is essentially quite simple.