On Wednesday 19 November 2003 15:29, Martin Vermeer wrote: One of the problems with Martin's messages is that you need to think a bit about them. ;-)
[...] > You see, the main difference between LaTeX and XML is, that while > LaTeX is a (one!) mark-up language, XML is a meta-language or > 'language construction kit'. (So when Microsoft say that their Office > formats will be XML based, that means next to nothing :) With all the cleaning your cleaning going on I am tempted to rename docbook to SGML and the make docbook as an instance of that. :-) The support for xml can be done with the flavour dialect. This will add <?xml version="1.0" encoding="latin-1"?> in the begin and take care of specific xml details inside. and/or adding a new attribute to the layout class describing its header. This is also be usefull to linuxdoc. " PUBLIC \"-//OASIS//DTD DocBook V4.1//EN\"" for SGML docbook " system" for linuxdoc " PUBLIC \"-//AGU//DTD article American Geophysical Union DTD version 3.42//EN" for AGU " PUBLIC \"-//W3C//...XHTML...//EN\"" for xhtml > This means that, whereas LaTeX has lots of add-on packages, the core > language is pretty fixed. This is why the hard-wired stuff for > item-environments works without much parametrization. Also LaTeX is > much less verbose with its mark-up than most XML dialects. > > Though I have said earlier that the AGU format is a variant of > DocBook, the differences in syntax between original DocBook and > AGU DTD are massive compared to what you can find between any two > LaTeX document classes. True. [...] > I hope this clears up things a bit. > > Hoping for one (or more) of three outcomes: > > 1) a serious in-depth discussion > 2) go-ahead for checking this in (with or without the AGU stuff) After your last patch I favour this one, but then I am suspect. :-) > 3) clear (and realistic, finite-execution-time :) instructions as to > what to change/do differently in order to make this check-inable. > > - Martin -- José Abílio
