Idris Samawi Hamid wrote: >>But you should also explore DocBook-in-ConTeXt, which >>uses ConTeXt's native XML processing capabilities. > > > Is it possible to create a Word template that is isomorphic with a DocBook > format?
You can write a Word template isomorphic to a (pretty large) subset of DocBook, although I believe Word does not allow you to introduce new types of crossreferences, so you can't reach everything DocBook has. Whether you can make your authors use it consistently is a different matter – DocBook uses, for example, different elements for different types of what ConTeXt calls typing: <code> for inline code fragments, <command> for something you invoke (use <option> for its options and <symbol> for the placeholders to be replaced by actual values), <computeroutput> should be obvious but there are also <screen> and <screenshot> – the difference is a bit subtle; programmers might also use <constant>, <errorcode>, <errorname>, <errortext>, <exceptionname>, <funcdef>, <funcprototype>, <funcsynopsis>, <cmdsynopsis>, <constructorsynopsis>, <arg>, <function>, <methodname>, <methodparam>, <methodsynopsis>, <ooclass>, <ooexception>, <oointerface>, <progamlisting> and its annotated cousin <programlistingco>, <sgmltag>, <structfield>, <structname>, <varargs>, <varname>; <envar> denotes environment variables, <filename> is almost superfluous since it is a special case of a <systemitem> (yes, many of these elements carry further meta-information in their attributes), then there are the unspecific <literal> and <literallayout> elements and also <markup>, <userinput>, and finally there is also <uri> to format URLs and other URIs. Somewhat related elements also abound: <keycap> is used to denote keys on the keyboard, <keycombo> for combinations of those keys. <guibutton> is used for the text on a button in a GUI, <guilabel>, <guimenu>, <guimenuitem> and <guisubmenu> and many others. Note that I do not question this abundance of possibilities. After all, it is logical markup taken to an extreme and probably noone really uses all of it, yet all the parts are already there if you want them. I do question the likelihood of the average Word user (who, let's face it, probably never used formats since the introductory course) making good use of this. Sure it is nice to have authors' first and last names explicitly marked in your text, but someone has to go there and do that, and if they don't see any difference on their screens after doing it, they will get lazy and not do it for the fifteenth person they name. Additionally, most of the DocBook elements may only appear nested in the correct places in other elements, which makes using an isomorphic Word template rather challenging even for the advanced user. If you would like to browse through the long list of markup items in DocBook, please see http://docbook.org/tdg/en/html/docbook.html – and do not be afraid; as I said above, very much of what is there is absolutely special-purpose stuff. > Adam (privately) suggested hiring someone to write a structured format for > authors. Is that where docbook comes in? Actually, I would not orient the thing to fit to DocBook. DocBook is an extremely flexible beast, so if, after designing the structured format best suited for your needs (this does not need to invlove any xml), you want to map it to DocBook, that should not be any problem. > Basically, authors in the humanities use Word and it's virtually a lost cause > getting them to switch to anything else, even free tools like OO.o (let alone > ConTeXt). It would have to be someting where I could do > word=>docbook=>ConTeXt. As I said: Offering Word is obviously a must, but if that were the only option you offered, you'd be actively adding your part to making sure the situation does not change. And getting Word to export DocBook will certainly be much harder than using OOo for that part. Christopher _______________________________________________ ntg-context mailing list ntg-context@ntg.nl http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
