discuss: LinuxDoc vs. DocBook, was Re: part of the review?
Subject:
Re: LinuxDoc vs. DocBook, was Re: part of the review?
From:
"Anthony E. Greene" ####@####.####
Date:
16 Jul 2001 11:49:00 -0000
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0107160736050.28436-100000@cp5340.localdomain>
On Sun, 15 Jul 2001, David Lawyer wrote:
>On Sat, Jul 14, 2001 at 11:22:50PM -0700, Poet/Joshua Drake wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> We are never going to get anywhere with this David. It is purely opinion.
>> On one hand, we have the opinion of major publishers and documentation
>> projects that using DocBook is a good choice.
>A good choice for them but not for volunteers who may only write a
>few pages.
>
>Some things are facts: Here is a comparison of LinuxDoc vs DocBook:
[snip]
Yes Linuxdoc tags are simpler and allow the ommission of closing
tags. The latter is not necessarily a good thing.
I have some experience with scripting and HTML. It is easier for me to
work with tools that encourage structure. DocBook's structure makes for
more typing, but it's easier to understand exactly because it more
verbose. It's easy to decipher DocBook because you don't have to figure
out implied tags taht aren't actually there. You can take the example doc
and run with it.
Just my USD0.02.
Tony
--
Anthony E. Greene ####@####.#### <http://www.pobox.com/~agreene/>
PGP Key: 0x6C94239D/7B3D BD7D 7D91 1B44 BA26 C484 A42A 60DD 6C94 239D
Chat: AOL/Yahoo: TonyG05
Linux. The choice of a GNU Generation. <http://www.linux.org/>
