Re: Requiring use of DocBook; LinuxDoc

[Mark Komarinski <markk@cgipc.com>]

Gary Preckshot wrote:
> 
> Mark Komarinski wrote:
> >
> > Gary Preckshot wrote:
> See http://www.nwalsh.com/docbook/simple/index.html for
> Norman Walsh's simplified DocBook. It's probably relevant to
> this discussion and to your tutorial.

This has already been hashed out enough times.
 
> >
> > > >
> > > > * Do you think DB:TDG is bad resource?
> > >
> > > No, I think it's a reference, hardly a tutorial.
> >
> > The LAG/H-H is the tutorial, and references DB:TDG.
> 
> Tell me something I don't know.

You're complaining about the lack of resources and tutorials, when there's
two (IMO) good ones right there.  Count in resources from GNOME and *BSD
who also use DocBook, and you're even better off.

> > You shouldn't care what the output look like, as long as it's legible.  That's
> > part of the glory of SGML over .doc or .rtf.  There was a usability
> > study a few years ago between TeX authors and MSWord writers. The MSWord
> > people took much longer (maybe twice as long) because they spent that extra
> > time arranging items on the page, while the TeX folk didn't have to worry
> > about it.
> 
> That's a lot different than knowing what it will look like.
> I still need to know something about the effect. If DocBook
> is more efficient at achieving the effect that I want, I'm
> all for it. However, I still need to know that what I'm
> putting down will be some reasonable relation to what else I
> write. With DocBook, the formatting software fulfills the
> function of a very efficient secretary. I've always wanted
> to see what was going out before approving final release.

I've written 4 books.  My first one was written in .txt, completely
unformatted.  The next two were .DOC, and the most recent one was .rtf.
Not once did I care while I was writing what the output would look like.
Of course, it took my publisher a few extra weeks to get everything
formatted right, which is why the next one will be in DocBook.
I got a few of the final as part of editing/grammar corrections, so
I had an idea of what the finished product would look like, but it wasn't
the same as I sent them.

> SGML has another danger that has dogged authors since time
> immemorial. That is, being quoted out of context. With the
> markup, interested parties can pull anything they want out
> of your work, and you may have no recourse.

HTML/LinuxDoc/Word/RTF/ASCII/Punch Cards has another danger that has dogged authors since time
immemorial. That is, being quoted out of context. With the
markup, interested parties can pull anything they want out
of your work, and you may have no recourse.

How is SGML different?

-Mark

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlo Gavazzi IPC     | Mark F. Komarinski, RHCE - Compat. Engineer|
176 Second Ave        | markk@cgipc.com - www.cgipc.com            |
Waltham, MA 02451 USA | Ph: 781-266-1138  Fx: 781-290-4810         |


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org