klaas holwerda a écrit :
> -what are you people using (or better the authors in general).
I use LyX (http://www.lyx.org) to write DocBook documents. It's a WYSIWYM
editor easy to use. By default it supports SGML output, but it's easy to
have XML. It's free and works fine on unix like platforms,
Hear, hear!
I'm not sure I want to claim to be either a writer or a programmer, but I
think Denis has put his finger on the key issue. None of the tools I've
seen do a good job of hiding the irrelevant (to the author) mechanics of
SGML/XML and the processing toolchain from the author.
By tha
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 11:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DOCBOOK-APPS: best tool for docbook?
On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 05:21:34PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >> But they need at least approximation of visual appearance during
editing.
>
/ Dennis Grace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
| I apologize if I've insulted anyone's preferred software tool set.
Gosh, I hope not. I certainly wasn't insulted. And I apologize if my
reply might have lead you to think I was.
Be seeing you,
/ Dennis Grace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
| I actually prefer writing and editing in markup, but emacs--even with
| psgmlx and the Windows settings--is a drag. I agree that emacs+psgml (or
| psgmlx) offers a solution, especially for those who can't or don't want to
| work in Windows, bu
On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 05:21:34PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> But they need at least approximation of visual appearance during editing.
> They aren't able edit text without some level of WYSIWYG.
If they have this problem, then they have not completely internalized
the philosophy behin
A pointer to an introduction to emacs/psgml and some psgml tips that you
might find useful:
The Emacs/PSGML chapter from "SGML CD: Free SGML Software and How to Use
It", Bob DuCharme:
http://www.snee.com/bob/sgmlfree/emcspsgm.zip
Various PSGML Tricks:
http://www.snee.com/bob/sgmlfree/emcspsg
Dave Pawson wrote:
> At 14:54 22/08/2001 -0500, Dennis Grace wrote:
> I.e. take a block of stuff and gradually make it
> conformant to a DTD.
Yeah, I do that a lot, too. I'm surprised you haven't been using macros
to speed up the task. For example, if you have a chunk of regularly
formatted te
It's going to become a principle discussion (sorry for the long text, but I
could no longer hold my horses)...
> -Original Message-
> From: Rafael 'Dido' Sevilla [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Sounds like it. I think a lot of them haven't tried going through the
> complete list of all
At 14:54 22/08/2001 -0500, Dennis Grace wrote:
Two points.
I came at emacs looking for a gui free environment for non visual users.
Emacs fits the bill well for that.
I have a copy of xmetal, but seldom use it.
My reasons?
Only epic and emacs allow what I call 'bulk' markup.
I.e. take a block
I'd just like to add to this discussion that the beauty
of XML is that you can use *any and all* of these editing
tools to work on your XML files. 8^)
With Word and FrameMaker files, you have to use Word and
FrameMaker to write and edit. With XML, I can use a
graphical tool like XMetal to write
0702 0967 322
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: http://www.myrnham.co.uk/
Jirka Kosek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23/08/01 15:00
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: Re: DOCBOOK-APPS: best tool for docbook?
On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 12:10:32PM -0400, Bob McIlvride wrote:
> At the same time, using Emacs helped me change my mind set from semantic
> markup to structural markup. Could it be that some people who demand a
> WYSIWYG editor for DocBook are those who haven't yet internalized this
> paradigm?
>
Holger Rauch wrote:
Hi Holger,
> Ok, but why do you think WYSIWYG XML editors are a tool for masses? Since
> there is no *real* WYSIWYG in the XML world, why care about it? To be
> honest, I don't really see why Emacs+PSGML could not be used by a wider
> audience. Ok, a sysadmin should provide t
At 08:11 AM 8/22/01 -0500, Dennis Grace wrote:
>Well, Holger, it may be just that some of us find emacs a clumsy,
>cumbersome editor. If that sounds harsh, you should hear what some of the
>other writers in my group have to say about emacs.
responding to Holger's comment
>>I'm wondering why noon
Hi Jirka!
On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Jirka Kosek wrote:
> I don't think that Emacs+PSGML is XML editing environment for masses - I
> think I can say it, because I'm using it 80 % of time working with my
> computer. [...]
Ok, but why do you think WYSIWYG XML editors are a tool for masses? Since
there
Hi Dennis!
Thanks a lot for your reply!
On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Dennis Grace wrote:
> Well, Holger, it may be just that some of us find emacs a clumsy,
> cumbersome editor. If that sounds harsh, you should hear what some of the
> other writers in my group have to say about emacs.
In what respect
Hi Bob,
Thank you for a cogent and considered response. I only have a couple of
minor quibbles.
You wrote:
I almost regret having entered this discussion, since I can't claim to
be knowledgeable on any editor for DocBook other than Emacs, not having
used any other.
I know how you feel. Th
Hi Dennis,
I almost regret having entered this discussion, since I can't claim to
be knowledgeable on any editor for DocBook other than Emacs, not having
used any other. I only wanted to point out that although the learning
curve is practically vertical for Emacs, there are benefits. Perhaps I
I know I'm not the only person using vi (vim to be precise) for DocBook,
but no one has mentioned it so far.
I've found nothing zoomier for me. Dan York posted a link to an
excellent vimrc file here a while back that I've modified a little to
suit my tastes and it works wonderfully (Thanks Da
On 22 Aug 2001 08:11:12 -0500, Dennis Grace wrote:
> Well, Holger, it may be just that some of us find emacs a clumsy,
> cumbersome editor. If that sounds harsh, you should hear what some of the
> other writers in my group have to say about emacs.
>
> I actually prefer writing and editing in mark
At 08:11 22/08/2001 -0500, Dennis Grace wrote:
> but I certainly wouldn't classify the combination as one
>of the "best tools for DocBook."
I would. I've been given money at work to buy a new editor,
for DTD's and Schema's, and I still can't find a better option.
Just my view. DaveP
> Well, Holger, it may be just that some of us find emacs a clumsy,
> cumbersome editor.
My two cents worth: I came to my current job from a Mac/Windows desktop
publishing, 100% WYSIWYG background, and even wrote articles on the
advantages of the author having full control of the layout of the
Dennis Grace wrote:
> I actually prefer writing and editing in markup, but emacs--even with
> psgmlx and the Windows settings--is a drag. I agree that emacs+psgml (or
> psgmlx) offers a solution, especially for those who can't or don't want to
> work in Windows, but I certainly wouldn't classify
nt by: cc:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: DOCBOOK-APPS: best
tool for docbook?
I personally like emacs + psgml. But that may not be the best choice for
your target audience. I knew Emacs before I ever heard of SGML/XML, so the
learning curve for the editor per sec was, shall we say, short. But Emacs
is not an easy editor to introduce to non-programmers.
At 11:12 PM 8/
Hi!
I'm wondering why noone dared to mention Emacs+PSGML mode,
especially the psgmlx package maintained by Mark Johnson.
It makes setting up Emacs and PSGML a breeze. You just run the
"test" shell script that's included, and everything is done for you.
Besides, you get a lot of different color th
Hi All,
Thanks for all the very usefull responces, it will help me a lot
to make the right choice.
I believe there is just one question that poped up:
What sort of documentation will you be producing?
Many graphics involved, for the rest manuals for radar systems, templates
for documents.
I ho
I'll follow up on these XMetal leads and put together a
little XMetal helper package for SourceForge.
bobs
Bob Stayton 400 Encinal Street
Publications Architect Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Technical Publications voice: (831) 427-
tinks, you will have to be spiritually prepared. Server-side XSLT is much more reliable.
Jaccoud
Eric Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21/08/2001 12:23
Para: docbook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Assunto: Re: DOCBOOK-APPS: best too
Apologies if this is not the best forum for this...
I've been writing with Epic (and Adept SGML for several years before that).
First, you are 100% right to worry about how your writers will react -
resistance to markup from people who are used to word processors can be a
serious obstacle. I don
Bob Stayton wrote:
>
> > klaas holwerda wrote:
> >
> > -what is the best XML editor around that has some direct implementation
>
> XMetal doesn't come with DocBook support, but it isn't
> hard to add. The DTD will work directly, or you can
> compile it with their DTD compiler. The hardest
> pa
Hello
> > klaas holwerda wrote:
> >
> > -what is the best XML editor around that has some direct implementation
>
> I use XMetal from SoftQuad. It provides a graphical
> You'll also need to set a few customization rules
> so literallayout and program listings are recognized,
> so their lines a
Bob Stayton wrote:
> very much want to avoid). I'd be willing to
> share what I've got. I think SoftQuad is missing the boat
That would be great! I have never had enough will to create some
reasonable CSS for XMetaL by myself. May be we can create new module in
CVS and put some customization f
Klaas
What sort of documentation will you be producing?
Myrnham Associates have a great product for Courseware authors that produces Docbook XML with practically no requirement for knowledge of the DTD and it's free!
There's a product for customising content and parsing to Word files too.
http
> klaas holwerda wrote:
>
> -what is the best XML editor around that has some direct implementation
I use XMetal from SoftQuad. It provides a graphical
interface with text formatted for the screen, so it
is similar to using a word processor (and similar to
ArborText).
It runs only under Window
klaas holwerda wrote:
> -what is the best XML editor around that has some direct implementation
> for (XML) docbook with it.
Probably Epic from ArborText.
> -the cost is not so important (anything we have to add our selfs will be
> more expensive in hours).
Oh, you probably don't know, how exp
-- Original Message --
From: klaas holwerda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 23:12:18 +0200
>Hi,
>
>I always use a standard text editor (scintilla or nedit) with only XML
>tag highlighting.
>
I really like epcedit (www.epcedit.com) Runs under lin
38 matches
Mail list logo
