ted creedon wrote:
It would be advisable to investigate converting the IBM.htm directly into
docbook xml. The trouble with the Latex conversion is the reserved
characters (# . \ etc) in the htm don't map cleanly into Latex.
I suspect that docbook will never produce typeset pdf documents as
I've done some work on using DocBook to make both web documents and
high-quality PDFs. The approach I used was to put LaTeX hints into the
DocBook elements using the 'role' attribute. Role is ignored by most
downstream processing, but you can easily write a DocBook-to-LaTeX
converter that uses
On 7/8/05, Ken Hornstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This illustrates _exactly_ my feelings about documentation formats.
Basically, I don't give a shit about 90% of the worthless crap that
these systems do (yeah, I'm going to be writing a WHOLE LOT of theorems
in the Kerberos FAQ); what I want is
Ken Hornstein wrote:
This illustrates _exactly_ my feelings about documentation formats.
Basically, I don't give a shit about 90% of the worthless crap that
these systems do (yeah, I'm going to be writing a WHOLE LOT of theorems
in the Kerberos FAQ); what I want is a simple layout that looks
1. My message was information and an offer of help. It wasn't even a
recommendation. If you don't want it, don't take it. You don't need to
unload a bunch of attitude on me.
Sigh. I apologize for that; the whole documentation mess has been something
I wished I could ignore, and the rant really
Oops, sent privately to Ken by mistake.
Steve
---BeginMessage---
Ken Hornstein wrote:
1. My message was information and an offer of help. It wasn't even a
recommendation. If you don't want it, don't take it. You don't need to
unload a bunch of attitude on me.
Sigh. I apologize for that;
