jean-frederic clere wrote: >> :-) Sorry about 'horrible'. >> >> What I meant is - the elements like <section> and almost everything >> else have an identical meaning as the standard XHTML or docbook element. >> It's a mix of elements - to do something that is already done and >> standard and accepted. >> >> What I find horrible is the fragmentation and missuse of XML >> ( not only here, but all over ). >> What's wrong with a subset of XHTML or Docbook ? > > The first idea was to save us from writing XML tags and concentrate in the > text. We have ended defining a dtd that fits our needs with typing the > minimum...
I'm not sure I understand. How is this 'saving us' from writing XML tags? We still have to write XML tags, and what's worse - to learn a set of tags that we'll never use outside jk. As oposed to write the same thing using the tags we already know - subset of XHTML - or learn a set of tags that we'll likely use - a subset of docbook. And both XHTML and Docbook have editors and tools that would actually 'save us from writing XML' and concentrate on text. And plenty of stylesheets to generate pdf or whatever else. > >> Do we >> plan to beat W3C and Oasis in setting a standard for document >> dtd ? > > No, but extending one dtd would be better than reinventing everything. > I will try to make a cleanup as soon as I have time. (docs need a lot of > time). ??? We do reinvent everything aparently - yet another non-standard document DTD. W3C and Oasis define some reasonable and widely used DTDs for that. If someone feels docbook is too complex - we can restrict ourselfs to a subset ( like linuxdoc did for a while ) , but we'll still benefit from some of the existing tools and what we already know. As I said, that's just me ranting - if the majority is happy with our private DTD for docs - I'll have to use it ( but that doesn't mean I have to like it ). -- Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
