On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Ron Artstein wrote:
> > Back at the lecture I was surprised to hear that someone there
> > (who was otherwise very knowledgable in TeX and LaTeX) did not
> > hear about DocBook.
>
> Here's a link to more information on DocBook:
>
> http://www.docbook.org/
>
> And a quote from the page:
>
> DocBook is general purpose XML and SGML document type
> particularly well suited to books and papers about computer
> hardware and software (though it is by no means limited to
> these applications).
>
>
> From this we can already infer that DocBook is *not* a typesetter.
>
> - Typesetters are computer programs.
> (well, some are; others are real human beings)
> - DocBook is not a computer program. (nor is it a human being)
> It is a *document type*: a precise characterization of various
> tags that define the structure of a document.
>
DocBook is indeed not a typesetter. However, sometimes DocBook refers to
the collection of programs used to bring the format to its final form.
Usually, it relies on some existing typesetter (like TeX or XSL-FO) to
convert to for print formats.
> A document type could be defined in such a way as to allow the
> designer/author of a particular document to fully specify all
> the details relevant to typesetting. But a typesetting program
> would still be needed in order to transform this definition
> into a printed page/book.
>
Right, that's how DocBook operates.
>
> I'm not familiar with the DocBook document type, but my guess would
> be that it would not include specifications for all the fine
> controls that one would expect from a typesetting format. Here's an
> example of such a control: something that allows you to adjust the
> character spacing within a paragraph in order to make it one line
> shorter or taller than its natural height (this is controlled in
> TeX by the \looseness parameter). This can be useful in the final
> editing of a typeset book, in order to overcome a bad page break.
> However, it makes little sense when talking about formats like HTML
> (where exactly are the page breaks?) or man pages (how exactly are
> we going to adjust character spacing on a fixed-width terminal?).
>
> Now it is possible to define an SGML tag <para looseness=-1>,
> where the attribute would be taken into account for typesetting
> and ignored when producing man pages.
It is possible, but not directly. I think DocBook supports CSS, and it is
possible to assign a class="" or a style="" attribute to a tag, that will
modify its behaviour. This may require modification to the DSSSL or XSLT
stylesheet that is used to control the output. I believe it should be
possible.
> I don't know, perhaps the
> DocBook DTD has such an attribute. But I doubt it, because this
> sort of information is particular not only to the output media,
> but to a certain print run (after the next revision the page
> breaks may be different). This information simply doesn't belong
> in a document that is supposed to undergo cycles of revision and
> output into various media. It makes much more sense (to me) to
> exercise this kind of fine control *after* the document has been
> exported for typesetting.
>
Right.
> Bottom line: the requirements of a generic mark-up scheme for
> computer books designed to be to be exported to various media are
> to a certain extent different from the requirements of a mark-up
> scheme needed for high-quality typesetting. So it is likely that a
> system tailored for one use will not be the best for the other.
>
Again, correct. I do not claim DocBook is a typesetting system. But it is
almost unparalled as a generic format from which to derive documents in a
multitude of formats.
>
> > DocBook is, IMO, very, very cool. Some of its drawbacks are:
> >
> > 3. Two few visual markups (only one <emphasis> tag).
>
> Can't resist giving my opinion:
>
> <emphasis> is not a visual markup: it is a logical one. In practice
> it is often (ab)used for its visual effects, but that's a different
> story.
>
> The decision to eschew visual markup is a very good one, IMHO.
> Speaking about my own LaTeX practices, I always do my best to
> bury my visual markup in macros, styles and classes. One big
> advantage for me is that it forces me to think more each time I
> want to apply a visual effect: if I can't find a reason for this
> effect---either an existing logical markup or a new one that I
> believe is justified---then the visual effect I had in mind is
> probably inappropriate. Overall it leads to a better writing style.
>
> Remember, the goal of the DocBook project is to create good books,
> not to allow fancy formatting. Good work.
>
Maybe I did not made myself clear enough. I don't think visual tags would
be reasonable in DocBook. However, I find it distressing that the only way
to emphasize text is using the <emphasis> tag. In XHTML I have <b> (bold),
<i> (italic) and <u> (underline), which I can assign different styles to
each using CSS. In DocBook I only have <emphasis> and I have to start
tempering with the generating stylesheets to create different classes for
it, so I'll have more variety.
OTOH, DocBook has dozens of tags for marking computer text, anything from
function parameters, to screen output.
But who is John Galt?
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Home Page: http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/
An apple a day will keep a doctor away. Two apples a day will keep two
doctors away.
Falk Fish
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haifa Linux Club Mailing List (http://www.haifux.org)
To unsub send an empty message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
