discuss: Author Guide SGML Smoke Test for Emacs/PSGML
Subject:
Re: Author Guide SGML Smoke Test for Emacs/PSGML
From:
Jorge Godoy ####@####.####
Date:
14 Mar 2001 00:53:57 -0000
Message-Id: <kp8zm9kvw2.fsf@dagon.conectiva>
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, ####@####.#### wrote:
> The smoke test fails if the test file is XML. The message is that
> "XML forbids omitted tag minimization." While the Author Guide
> claims that there is little difference between the SGML and XML
> versions of DocBook, this is one of several examples that, as a
> newcomer, cause me to see the current Author Guide as less friendly
> toward those of us who want to start with XML and could care less
> about SGML.
The same guide says that you can't minimize XML tags. I've written
that part. I'll try to upgrade it --- actually, I've done it but I had
no time to check it before sending it to Mark...
> Now, clearly the smoke test is labeled as an SGML Smoke Test and I'm
> sure that if I jumped over to the SGML vs XML section I could figure
> out how to fix this for XML. But my point is that I don't want to
> learn SGML and then learn modifications for XML. I just want to
> learn the XML way. So why isn't there an XML Smoke Test? Why is XML
> getting shortchanged in a very recent version of a guide targeted
> for new authors?
XML support in LDP is somewhat new. That's why there aren't that many
information yet. But be calm. :-) We'll get there. Meanwhile, I'm a
volunteer to discuss some XML with you. It's rules are the same of
SGML for an author. Just the small things that are mentioned in the
Guide should be taken care of/avoided.
> I really think we're missing out on the chance to ride the
> groundswell of support for XML in general. If DocBook takes off it
> will be because of XML. Clinging to all this SGML crap is
> shortsighted. Let's face it, SGML just never reached its
> potential. But XML is going gangbusters. New users of DocBook and
> new LDP authors are going to be more interested in XML than in
> SGML. So the LDP needs to do an about face and put XML in the
> forefront and SGML in the closet.
>
> Of course, this is just my opinion. Take it or leave it.
I take it. And, as it is now, I don't see that we're leaving XML
out. We have it almost completely documented. Really! I've converted
the whole thing that I've written to DocBook XML 4.1.2. :-) And I had
to change only what's described at the Guide. Nothing more, nothing
less. :-)
BTW, XML is much more 'maketed' than SGML. That's why you said that
SGML is crappy and XML is more gangbuster. :-) If you look at them at
technical level, you'll see the differences and the power of each of
them at their specific target.
Regards,
--
Godoy. ####@####.####
Departamento de Publicações Conectiva S.A.
Publishing Department Conectiva Inc.
"Ser poeta não é minha ambição, é minha maneira de estar sozinho"
- Fernando Pessoa
