Quoting Richard Eckart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
from ml.softs.gtk-gnutella.devel:
:I personally think, that DocBook SGML is also about as readable as
:normal text.
The problem I have with DocBook is that it is ill-designed. You see,
anything that uses <sect1> <sect2> etc... to denote sections is bad,
because it prevents moving sections around in the nested tree without
having to renumber.
A few years ago, I wrote my own DTD and SGML tools to process help files.
My SGML used <section> uniformly, and processing tools were able to gather
by themselves the nesting level and format accordingly. That said, after
writing about 150KB worth of documentation in that SGML, I got fed up.
The worst thing was when collegues were editing the SGML via an SGML
editor (I was using plain vi) and then submitting into CVS. The diffs
were awful to figure out, since the SGML editors took the liberty to
reformat my nicely indented SGML. OK, bad tools. Bad experience as well.
That said, you may use SGML and DocBook if you wish. Just forbid any
tool other than vi or Emacs, i.e. make it so that the SGML markup is as
little obstrusive to the eye as possible.
Don't let my loathing of *ML languages discourage you. Maybe this will
be a successful experience that will reconcile me with that class of
languages?
Raphael
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Scholarships for Techies!
Can't afford IT training? All 2003 ictp students receive scholarships.
Get hands-on training in Microsoft, Cisco, Sun, Linux/UNIX, and more.
www.ictp.com/training/sourceforge.asp
_______________________________________________
Gtk-gnutella-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gtk-gnutella-devel
