On 12/15/06, Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
{snip}Yes. XML is the way to go for the future. {snip} But at the same time, wiki is nice tool to write such documents.
Aye, there's the rub. XML is great because it's very regular, and the tools are there, but at the same time, it's one of the ugliest to write and read in source form. Wiki's tend to be the easiest for humans to work with, but the syntax can be ambiguous (especially if you try to shoehorn in too much syntax for numerous features). Though not relevant here, my personal preference is for formats that mix the two a little bit. That is, provide some shortcuts for the common stuff (like blank lines to separate paragraphs), but then still be rigorous enough to not have any ambiguity. The idea being, if it's easier to read and write in my text editor, then I'm more apt to like doing it. :) That's one of the reasons why Texinfo appeals to me. Really, issues about whether or not backends support Unicode and UTF-8 encoded files is secondary, since all these tools should (if not already) eventually be updated to work with them, regardless. Incidentally, the Texinfo tools can generate xml (texinfo.dtd) as well as Docbook output. ---John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
