Re: DCF: Can it live again?
Doesn't Ghostscript have a txt2pdf program? /Tom Kern On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:12:39 -0400, Tony Harminc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/4/16 David Boyes [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It'd still be nice to have something on Linux that understands 1403 listings, though. lpd...? Tony H. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: DCF: Can it live again?
In a message dated 4/17/2008 8:48:58 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Doesn't Ghostscript have a txt2pdf program? Been so long don't remember. Used to use DEVICE(PSA) to pass to ghostscript for .pdf output. Then along can _www.irfanview.com_ (http://www.irfanview.com) and just used generic text. Several years ago switched to ePrint from _www.leadtools.com_ (http://www.leadtools.com) and it has a txt2pdf of it's own... **Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos. (http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp0030002851) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
DCF: Can it live again?
DCF and Waterloo SCRIPT had a few differences in the interpretation of the dot commands, so often macros written for one didn't work on the other. Waterloo SCRIPT did support GML, but again, a slightly different set of tags than DCF, so that documents written for one often looked different on the other (or didn't format correctly). The key to what I want is the Bookmaster tag set, which doesn't work with Waterloo SCRIPT. Ordinary GML is pretty boring and utilitarian; Bookmaster is the set of specialized tags that IBM created to write their own manuals, and the combination of a really good understanding of what's necessary to easily create significant amounts of technical documentation and the practicality of how to get that documentation written is what makes the DCF+Bookie combination interesting. I can knock out a really stunning set of docs for a product in a tiny amount of time, and you'd never know they didn't come straight out of IBM Information Design in POK -- it looks, smells, and feels like IBM documentation, and better yet, it works like IBM documentation. Good example: the OpenSolaris for z documents are created with DCF and Bookie: the same source generates plain text, PDF (via Adobe Distiller and the LISTPS file that comes out of DCF), HTML, and (via Bookmaster/BUILD VM), a Library Manager compatible file. You install them like IBM docs, they're structured like IBM docs, and they work with the same tools that IBM docs. (I know that IBM produces PDF versions of manuals; I have the CMS version of DCF and the rest of the Bookmaster tools and I use them to create my own. I just wish I could run them somewhere else, since IBM seems hell-bent on neutering CMS into just a virtualization layer management tool) I know that DocBook has been mentioned in this thread and compared unfavorably with DCF. I've used both, although I haven't used DCF for many years. We recently started using DocBook on a couple of projects, and overall we were pretty pleased with it. I've used both as well; the comparison is closer if you compare GML to DocBook; raw DCF is rather like raw troff macros; not for the faint of heart. I think the problem I have with DocBook is twofold: 1) documentation on how to USE DocBook is nigh unto nonexistent. There's plenty of discussion about how it should work, and how various DTDs are applied and distributed, but there's almost nothing about how you actually *author* useful documents. Compare to Bookie: 3 page intro to what's happening, and you're producing useful output. This has been changing lately, but in comparison to the Bookie user guide, it's still very difficult to determine how to do simple things without inordinate amounts of research. (I know, I know, write your own damn book, but still...) If anyone knows of a good tutorial for DocBook, I'd sure like to know about it too. The Oreilly book on DocBook is pretty much useless, and it's the best I've seen (it's also visually ugly as sin, which is unusual for a Oreilly book). 2) XML is much more difficult to read and parse for humans than the simpler GML tag structure. I have editors that can do both, but if you're hunting for some weird formatting problem, it's a LOT harder to hunt that down in the XML files than in a flat text file with the simpler GML tagging. It's hard to create XML with XEDIT or ISPF, but as you say, Eclipse does a fine job. I can't run that on CMS, though (and AFAIK, no formatters exist for DocBook on CMS or TSO). A side note: another nice thing about Bookie is that it easily enables the native source file control stuff (ie CMS update) so versioning and maintenance of the docs is a LOT simpler. XML makes that very difficult -- you should see what a update file against a XML doc looks like after running EXECUPDT. 8-) I guess I should just buckle down and take the Bookie syntax definition and write a set of macros for TeX or troff that emulate them. It'd still be nice to have something on Linux that understands 1403 listings, though. Oh, well. C'est la vie. -- db -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: DCF: Can it live again?
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 04/16/2008 at 09:31 AM, David Boyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I've used both as well; the comparison is closer if you compare GML to DocBook; raw DCF is rather like raw troff macros; not for the faint of heart. It's not that bad, especially if you write macros for your repetitive tasks. It'd still be nice to have something on Linux that understands 1403 listings, though. That shouldn't be difficult. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: DCF: Can it live again?
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 04/15/2008 at 09:33 AM, David Boyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I'll say in public: if IBM is willing to let me have the source for DCF and Bookie, I will port it to Linux for free. I want it for my own use, and I think there are others who feel the same. ObColdDeadFingers May I be your first custopmer, or did someone beat me to it? For all it's warts and antiquities, DCF and Bookie are still more usable (and a darn sight better documented) than any of the Linux alternatives. C 'Linux' 'WYSIWYG (WYSIAYG)' -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: DCF: Can it live again?
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 04/15/2008 at 03:55 PM, Tony Harminc [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Is IBM DCF significantly different from the publicly available Waterloo Script? Yes, even if you're talking about the chargeable[1] Waterloo Script. I don't know whether they contributed the latter or whether it is still chargeable. [1] I don't recall when the last free version was, but it would have been sometime around the early 1980's. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: DCF: Can it live again?
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 04/15/2008 at 04:11 PM, Ed Finnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Basically 'text formatting languages' DCF adds GML tags and on into XML. Both way behind La Plume(MI) and La TeX(Stanford). Don't confuse TEX, which is Donald Knuth's, with LaTEX, which is Leslie Lamport's. The latter is a package of macros for the former. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: DCF: Can it live again?
2008/4/16 David Boyes [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It'd still be nice to have something on Linux that understands 1403 listings, though. lpd...? Tony H. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
DCF: Can it live again?
Would you guys stop talking about DCF (Document Composition Facility, 5748-XX9) a.k.a. Script in the past tense? It is still available for z/OS, z/VM, and z/VSE. Yes, but aren't DCF, BookMaster and BookManager MVS all functionally stabilized? I'll say in public: if IBM is willing to let me have the source for DCF and Bookie, I will port it to Linux for free. I want it for my own use, and I think there are others who feel the same. For all it's warts and antiquities, DCF and Bookie are still more usable (and a darn sight better documented) than any of the Linux alternatives. DocBook is a lame, lame piece of work by comparison. Bookie was written by people who actually had to PRODUCE large amounts of docs. If DCF could produce PDF directly, I'd be thrilled. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: DCF: Can it live again?
David Boyes wrote: I'll say in public: if IBM is willing to let me have the source for DCF and Bookie, I will port it to Linux for free. I want it for my own use, and I think there are others who feel the same. Or ask them for the layout of the bookmanager books and the indexes. IBM also ships PDF versions of Bookmanager books. You can also do searches on PDF shelves. DocBook is a lame, lame piece of work by comparison. Insert ', lame, f lame' between 'lame' and 'piece'... ;-D Groete / Greetings Elardus Engelbrecht -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: DCF: Can it live again?
2008/4/15 David Boyes [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I'll say in public: if IBM is willing to let me have the source for DCF and Bookie, I will port it to Linux for free. I want it for my own use, and I think there are others who feel the same. Is IBM DCF significantly different from the publicly available Waterloo Script? Tony H. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: DCF: Can it live again?
In a message dated 4/15/2008 3:07:39 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is IBM DCF significantly different from the publicly available Waterloo Script? Basically 'text formatting languages' DCF adds GML tags and on into XML. Both way behind La Plume(MI) and La TeX(Stanford). **It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolcmp0030002850) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: DCF: Can it live again?
Is IBM DCF significantly different from the publicly available Waterloo Script? I don't remember if Waterloo Script supports GML. I do recall that I didn't learn GML until I worked in a shop that used DCF. I first learned Waterloo Script, in 1976, at the University of Waterloo. The first two shops I worked at used it, as well. It wasn't until 1984, that I worked in a shop that used DCF. Then, I learned GML. So, except for that, I would say yes. PS: GML tags are just macros (in case you didn't know), and you can write/modify your own. I have done that. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: DCF: Can it live again?
I know that DocBook has been mentioned in this thread and compared unfavorably with DCF. I've used both, although I haven't used DCF for many years. We recently started using DocBook on a couple of projects, and overall we were pretty pleased with it. We were able to generate documentation in HTML for a website along with PDF from the same XML source files. We used a set of Java XSLT and FO translators and Ant scripts which integrates with our Eclipse development environment very nicely ... Eclipse's XML-schema aware XML editor, although not perfect, makes XML markup pretty friendly overall. So you can plead with IBM to port and open DCF, but DocBook is already open, free, and portable to about everywhere. Like DCF, you can customize the styles and tags to meet your requirements. I don't think that it is as polished as DCF right now, but it is pretty usable IMO. Kirk Wolf Dovetailed Technologies For an example of DocBook output (HTML and PDF), see: http://dovetail.com/docs/coz/index.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
