discuss: LinuxDoc vs. DocBook, was Re: part of the review?
Subject:
Re: LinuxDoc vs. DocBook, was Re: part of the review?
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
20 Jul 2001 15:42:08 -0000
Message-Id: <20010720004610.C1688@lafn.org>
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2001, David Lawyer wrote:
> >Some things are facts: Here is a comparison of LinuxDoc vs DocBook:
> [snip]
>
On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 07:49:04AM -0400, Anthony E. Greene wrote:
> Yes Linuxdoc tags are simpler and allow the omission 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 that aren't actually there. You can take the example doc
> and run with it.
I've never had the slightest problem with the lack of closing tags.
They happen in <title>, <date>, and <author> but these are usually
just one line. The docbook is harder to understand due to all the
clutter of the tags. In linuxdoc, I sometimes don't see any tags while
editing parts of it since it doesn't need paragraph tags. The blank
lines clearly delineate paragraphs.
David Lawyer
