discuss: Don't use DocBook, use AsciiDoc, it's for humans
Subject:
Re: [discuss] Don't use DocBook, use AsciiDoc, it's for humans
From:
Stein Gjoen ####@####.####
Date:
16 Dec 2005 22:01:53 -0000
Message-Id: <43A339E6.7000202@mail.nyx.net>
Scot W. Stevenson wrote:
> Hello Yves,
>
>> I'm convinced that we're shooting ourselves in the foot by recommending
>> DocBook at this time.
>
> My feelings exactly. Unfortunately, the majority here seems to be of
> different opinion. Life is bad.
All is not lost. Personally I use LinuxDoc and remain satisfied with
that. We have a problem, let us now look for a solution. In my opinion:
- selecting between, say, LinuxDoc and DocBook is a huge decision that
I am not sure all authors appreciate the full consequences of.
Therefore I propose the LDP Author Guide should make this clearer.
- tools for continuing writing are somewhat limited but not reduced
to simple editors. Syntax highlighting helps a lot, particularly
when it comes to tag rich DocBook documents. The Guide is rather
sparse in the chapter on tools.
Therefore I propose the LDP Author Guide should expand on writing
tools. A process involving LyX has been mentioned in the past but
is only mentioned in passing in the LyX to DocBook appendix.
Tools discussions are recurring but unlike that of licensing I feel
this one is making clear progress, as in having made templates and
generators available to authors. Also this is an important discussion
that I feel should not just be closed; we have limited number of
authors here and should endeavour to make life as an author as
productive and trouble free as possible.
Regards,
Stein Gjoen
