[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: documentation as info

From: Zack Brown
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: documentation as info
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 11:55:15 -0700
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.4i

On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 02:04:17PM -0400, Miles Bader wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 10:01:59AM -0700, Zack Brown wrote:
> > Why not use DocBook instead? It's far more flexible.
> (1) It's butt-ugly, like all sgml derivatives.

that's not true! XML is great! (XSLT, on the other hand, is butt ugly,
but gets the job done)

>   Its extremely verbose
>     tagging syntax puts the emphasis on the tags and not on the text.
>     Indeed, it seems to be _worse_ than `traditional' sgml; at least the
>     docbook source I've seen wraps _every_ paragraph in <para>...</para> --
>     nice for the document processing program, not so nice for the document
>     author.

Not so bad either, you just have macros to insert the tags. It's just a
set of conventions. You get used to it. And then you have a tremendous
amount of power over your text.

> (2) It's heavily promoted by Eric Raymond; that alone should give you pause...

Well, I would consider it on its merits regardless.

I agree DocBook is a bit verbose, but XML seems like the best tagging
system around - it's just so flexible. We could conceivably come up with
our own set of tags, which would be simple and clear.

Be well,

> -Miles
> -- 
> We have met the enemy, and he is us.  -- Pogo

Zack Brown

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]