Re: Re: Documantation Format

On Friday, Aug 1, 2003, at 16:40 America/Chicago, Eric Merritt wrote:

>> I'm totally agreeable -- it should be somewhat ubiquitous and easy
>> for everyone to read, modify and work with.  Tex may be too complex,
>> sell me on why Tex would be better than docbook and why docbook
>> would be better than plain text with an HTML/XML analog.
>
>  You can't parse semantically significant portions of a plain text 
> document. What
> part is the title, what part is the first section, who is the author? 
> You just can't
> easily pull this type of information from plain text. You need to be 
> able to do this to
> manage your documents and *realistically* convert them to html/pdf/etc.
> Thats the benifit of docbook.

Actually, the Python crew have a concept called STX (Structured Text) 
that is very suitable for the documentation needs that you have. I'm 
half way through writing a Ruby implementation of stx2html, so I know 
that it can produce markup languages (and therefore DocBook) as it's 
output.

As one who has maintained websites and documentation in pure HTML, I 
would not relish maintaining documentation in DocBook as the source 
format.

Simon


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Free shipping on all inkjet cartridge & refill kit orders to US & Canada. Low prices up to 80% off. We have your brand: HP, Epson, Lexmark & more.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5510
http://us.click.yahoo.com/GHXcIA/n.WGAA/ySSFAA/W4wwlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
pragmatic_lang-unsubscribe-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/