Re: Simplified DocBook

[David Lawyer <dave@lafn.org>]

On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 03:25:04PM +0930, David Lloyd wrote:
> 
> David et al:
> 
> > I think that what we ask people to use should be far simpler than
> > HTML.
> 
> Then they should use text, or a WYSIWYG/WYSIWYM editor.

Or LinuxDoc with just several tags in the body of the doc.  It's a lot
simpler than most HTML docs one sees on the Internet.

> > LinuxDoc actually has many more tags than I use.  But another
> > advantage is that tags are short and the <p> tag for paragraph is
> > optional (double spacing means the same as <p>).  This means that much
> > of the doc when displayed on a 25 row terminal shows only plain text
> > (no tags are seen).  Can DocBook do this?
> 
> That is an invalid point. What I think you are saying is that you
> believe that short tags, and what amounts to tag abbreviation, is a
> good thing. 

Yes.  It makes it easy to add them manually using a text editor.  It
also makes the result look better since it's uncluttered by tags.

> However you then add context and disregard the purpose of DocBook
> which, I contend, invalidates your argue on a logical level.

I agree that DocBook has more tags and more options and is thus better
in that respect.  I argue that for some LinuxDoc is the best choice.

> If we were to prescribe DocBook XML as the markup language, I would
> argue that XML's insistence on proper form would assist everyone in the
> long run.

How would this help much?  LinuxDoc also requires a certain form.  It
even required that the doc has an <author> while DocBook didn't.  

         DocBook
> > Then LinuxDoc sometimes uses nested tags like a <Para> tag
> > inside an <ListItem> whereas in LinuxDoc no <p> tag is needed inside of
> > a <item> "element".
> 
> I think you've mistyped at least one of the LinuxDoc's here.
> 
Sorry.  I meant DocBook

> > Should additional tags be created for LinuxDoc?
> 
> Which would make it become like the "lesser DocBook DTD"...
Or mini DocBook DTD

> The reasons for having people create a validatable (not just well
> formed) document to submit to any publisher such as the LDP should go
> without saying. Whilst I do not intend to use LinuxDoc myself I am
> satisfied that it is a reasonable, easy-to-use and not too difficult to
> support DTD or other entity. Other people may choose to use DocBook SGML
> or XML for their own purposes; I use it in my professional work and find
> it natural to use when writing or submitting my "voluntary" documents.
> 
> Conducting a debate centered around "LinuxDoc allows you to use [insert
> something here] whereas DocBook (because it's an XML or SGML DTD) does
> not" doesn't really prove anything given that LinuxDoc and DocBook are
> totally different items and cannot be so easily compared. 

What it proves is that if one has to enter the tags manually, the
effort is much less with LinuxDoc.  I also think that reading the
source is a bit easier with LinuxDoc due to less/shorter tags.  In
spite of these advantages there are also disadvantages to LinuxDoc.

>  The question we should address is "what benefits do LinuxDoc and
>  DocBook display; given these sets of benefits is it worth
>  supporting one, both or trying to find another alternative...."

I would say both, but at present the Author-HOWTO doesn't say a word
about LinuxDoc.
			David Lawyer


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