CACrown ArchivesHistory · sources · collections
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

LinuxDoc

document type definition similar to DocBook

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionMay 8, 2026
Entity authorityQ6555031 ↗
Source-derived summary

LinuxDoc is an SGML DTD which is similar to DocBook. Matt Welsh created it, and version 1.1 was announced in 1994. It is primarily used by the Linux Documentation Project. The DocBook SGML tags are often longer than the equivalent LinuxDoc tags.

LinuxDoc has a more succinct DTD than DocBook. Users of small to medium-size projects have found that it suits their purposes better than DocBook.

The Debian distribution of Linux has a Linuxdoc-tools package.

Editorial summary

Begin with the source’s own compact description: “LinuxDoc” is document type definition similar to DocBook. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through LinuxDoc, document and type, not as a finished interpretation.

Editorial reviewA practical starting point whose main value is the path it opens into stronger specialist and primary sources. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1994—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. For this dossier, LinuxDoc, document and type is the immediate research focus.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The phrase “document type definition similar to DocBook” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.

Evidence profile

Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated May 8, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q6555031. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1994.

Critical limits

The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “LinuxDoc”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow LinuxDoc primary sources, LinuxDoc archive and LinuxDoc research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “LinuxDoc”?
  2. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
  3. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “LinuxDoc” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.