[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Requiring use of DocBook; LinuxDoc
Gary Preckshot wrote:
> Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > * Not removing from DocBook, removing from example. Read into it a little
> > harder, please, without issuing a flame.
> I think you have a low ignition temperature.
Tossing gasoline followed by a lit match doesn't help either.
> > * DocBook is not 'obscure', it's quite straightforward.
> There seem to be a lot of people who'd rather use LinuxDoc.
> Their posts seem to describe DocBook as anything but
> "straightforward." Certainly, there's a subset of folks that
> think DocBook is too big for their computers.
So far I count one person. Two if you include yourself. That's not "a lot".
> > * 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.
> > * As a documentation writer, you need only care about your DocBook. DSSSL is
> I need feedback. The ultimate objective is putting out
> documentation that people can read, is it not? If I don't
> know what effect the tags will have on the final product,
> I'm running open-loop.
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
When I send a document to the LDP, I don't know exactly what it will look like
when it's done, but I have a good idea. And that's good enough for me.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org