[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Simplified DocBook
jdd <email@example.com> writes:
> Le mer, 25 oct 2000, David C. Merrill, Ph.D. a écrit :
> > Excellent point! It is also important to realize that no word
> > processor will really do much to make sure you use the tags wisely
> > and appropriately.
> not so true. should be true if all tags where completely evident in
> any language. May be in english "filemane" is obvious, but in french
> it's not.
Of course this is not a deficiency unique to DocBook -- no DTD can
have tags whose meanings will be completely evident in any language.
What's really important: if you're authoring documentation for
software, the DTD you use should (for example) contain an element
(whatever its name) for semantically marking up the names of files in
your document. If your DTD does not, it's inadequate for authoring
software documentation -- unless you want to argue that there's no
point in marking up the names of files in software documentation.
> I neither know what is a "command" (there are many different
> definitions around)
> I fact I thing the tag's name is rarely self significative.
Not true. In the case of "command", there may be ambiguity. But there
is nothing ambiguous about "filename" (unless you want to split
hairs). It can mean only one thing, as can many other element names.
And if somebody can think of an element name that's less ambiguous
than "command", please go to the DocBook site and file an enhancement
request. I will too -- as soon as I think of something less ambiguous.
> I think you must know that all these "programlisting" tags do
> nothing more than giving some kind of font metric and paragraph
> handling that can have many others use than only list programms.
No -- to me at least, marking up/delimiting a program listing section
with semantic tags tells me, you, and anybody other person or machine
that looks at or processes the document that the section is a program
listing, not something else.
Are you suggesting there's no need for a "programlisting" element? I
can think of only one case when you don't need it: when you're not
working documents that may potentially contain program listings.
Otherwise, if you're working on documents that *could* contain program
listings (that is, almost all computer documentation), then you should
be using a DTD that offers an element for marking them up as such.
> * Sar Office is now open source, who can add a sgml module?
> (and the same for other wp)
But what's the advantage of using Lyx or Star Office/Open Office or
any other word processor to author structured documents? How does
using a word processor make things any easier for document authors?
Michael Smith mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org