discuss: Re: "Visual" Docbook SGML/XML
Subject:
Re: "Visual" Docbook SGML/XML
From:
David Merrill ####@####.####
Date:
23 Mar 2002 03:09:08 -0000
Message-Id: <20020323040058.GA1482@lupercalia.net>
On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 05:25:25PM -0700, Charles Curley wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 11:40:42AM -0800, Tabatha Persad muttered:
>
> >
> > I'm still working around the fact that Docbook doesn't have a "boldface"
> > tag! I like it, and I even don't mind emacs, considering that the other
> > editors I've seen don't do quite as much as emacs will with psgml. I can't
> > even suggest Xemacs because I find it seems (and I'm probably wrong) like
> > the features and commands are harder to find or set up!
>
> As an author, you have no business wanting a bold markup. You should
> leave that entirely to the DTD and style sheet hackers. The author
> should mark text up according to its logical function, and let the DTD
> and style sheet gurus descide if that logical function requires bolding.
Generally true. But you can use the <emphasis> tag. There's an
attribute:
<emphasis role='bold'>Bold Text</emphasis>
HTH,
--
David C. Merrill http://www.lupercalia.net
Linux Documentation Project ####@####.####
Lead Developer http://www.linuxdoc.org
Why can't Microsoft solve [technical problems]? Complacency. Microsoft has
no competition to speak of. No incentive to hurry. No urgency to its
mission. If it misses its target by, oh say... two years, what are we going
to do about it? Put OS/2 on our machines out of protest? Throw our $3,000
computers away and buy Macs instead? Throw our software away and switch to
Unix workstations? Of course not. We're stuck. We're screwed.
--Jesse Berst, ZDNet editor & columnist
