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

[Andrew Suffield]

On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 11:55:15AM -0700, Zack Brown wrote:
> 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)

XML docbook, now that's ugly.

Docbook _is_ verbose, and the solution to this is the set of
contraction features which sgml has and xml does not.

> >   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.

I never found it appreciably problematic.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature