On Wed, 14 Mar 2012, Lex Trotman wrote:
On 14 March 2012 09:48, Russell Dickenson <[email protected]> wrote:
Are the other points that I am missing?
From my point of view the main advantages of lightweight markup
languages (LML) over any XML based markup are:
1. As you say it has a low writer cost of entry, training to use LMLs
is much faster.
2. Writers like it better. You are in the position where docbook is
the norm, mostly I was transitioning organisations from word
processors to the joys of single source multiple output format
documenting, and the push-back against XML was significant.
2. Most LMLs are less intrusive, more readable so the writer and
reviewers can concentrate more on the content. Though without doing
any scientific studies this seemed to be a real productivity
difference.
3. Also don't underestimate the productivity advantages of simply
having less to type, especially where writers are not professional
typists (mine were usually engineers or programmers). And less to
type and simpler to type means less markup errors more content.
Also:
5. A lightweight markup language 'versions' better (i.e. diffs are
easier to read compared to XML files) which makes collaborating on
documentation easier.
--
-- dag wieers, [email protected], http://dag.wieers.com/
-- dagit linux solutions, [email protected], http://dagit.net/
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"asciidoc" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/asciidoc?hl=en.
