Brandon
On 10/3/06, Larry Meadors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd agree - OOo on my box is total crap for docbook - like worse than
Word for HTML.
Larry
On 10/3/06, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think Brandon was suggesting we continue to use OOo with DocBook. I
> can attest to the poor quality of the DocBook output from OOo....
>
> But it's a good way to start. We can export to DocBook, then clean it up (a
> lot). From that point on, we use XXE or a text editor...
>
> Cheers,
> Clinton
>
>
> On 10/3/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 10/2/06, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > DocBook -- currently the choice of iBATIS.NET documentation. It excels
> at
> > > "diffability" and multi-format including great PDF and HTML output. But
> it
> > > fails at ease of use / familiarity and therefore participation and quick
> > > changes/deployment as well. All other criteria are met but not
> exceeded.
> >
> > DocBook with OpenOffice seems like a fair option.
> >
> > One thing to watch is whether systems like XMLMind format the
> > underlying content in the same way. We'd want to avoid unnecessary
> > cruft on the checkins, so if everyone is OK with OpenOffice, that
> > might make for the best default editor.
> >
> > The OO XML format is not the friendliest for a change log, since it
> > doesn't wrap lines, but it does seem like the lesser of evils.
> >
> > DocBook is also compatible with systems like Maven and Forrest, should
> > that ever come up.
> >
> > -Ted.
> >
>
>
