Thomas Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > (3) It's nice if the doc sources are reasonably attractive as plain > text. And then derive all the formats you like from that. Which > would suggest I should be a bigger docbook fan than I actually am but > I'm not (as a source text form), so there.
Eh, how does that follow? Docbook sources are horribly ugly -- they're _so_ verbose that it's often quite a chore to even find the underlying text for all the layers of (verbose) tagging. I've never written a document in docbook, but for the same reason it looks like pure drudgery to write if you're not using rather heavy editor magic. I would never consider docbook an acceptable source form as long as people expect to able to reasonably edit the sources as raw text. -Miles -- If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten. [George Carlin] _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
