docbook: Alternative to tag in Docbook
Subject:
Re: Alternative to tag in Docbook
From:
Peter Jay Salzman ####@####.####
Date:
9 Aug 2002 08:32:54 -0000
Message-Id: <20020809083247.GA19468@dirac.org>
begin odc ####@####.####
>
> Thank you for the help, but none of the options would work. Except for
> the CSS -- I think, I have to add that into the final version of my
> document, as I do not know how to place it inline with the SGML.
>
> If anybody knows how it would be appreciated.
>
> I am, also a little dissapointed with the whole SGML Docbook concept.
>
> Why cannot I use <br> ?
in the words of our previous president, i feel your pain. docbook is
painful to write in. however, i've found that the pain does go away.
i enjoy maintaining my HOWTO and mini-HOWTO so much that i've stopped
minding docbook a long time ago.
one of the goals of docbook is logical markup. that is,
<command>foo</command> and <filename>foo</filename> may end up looking
the same on paper, but the important thing is that foo is going to be
formatted according to what foo is, rather than the fact that "foo is an
important concept".
note that html and latex are markup languages too, but they're more
visual markup. an <I>important</I> thing is formatted visually rather
than \textit{logically}.
<BR> is an example of visual formatting. it serves no purpose in<BR>
this paragraph, other than to break a line. but the whole point of<BR>
logical markup is that the author shouldn't have to worry about<BR>
visual markup like linebreaking.\hfill
> Why isn't <para> abbreviated to <p> for simplicities sake ?
who knows. it would've been nice. then again, whoever came up with
"umount" and "creat" clearly went too far in the wrong direction!
pete
