Quoth David Roundy, > I don't know anything about docbook (which quite likely is very good), but > latex isn't bad either (and being a physicist I pretty much have to know it > anyways). I've looked briefly at some docbook source, and it looked (to my > untrained eye) uglier than latex source, and harder to input. But that's > probably just because I am unfamiliar with it. > > latex2html gives reasonably good (but a tad ugly) output. If all you want > is perfectly functional output, it should be fine. You can see an example > at http://civet.berkeley.edu/paratec/ (just the manual to a code that you > don't have access to...). > > Probably if you don't want to typeset any math, though, you're better off > using docbook... but I can't vouch for that.
As a social science (criminology) doctoral student, writing a PhD thesis in LaTeX, I'd argue very strongly that it's useful for people who don't need to write lots of complex equations. LaTeX, Xemacs, BibTeX and SiXPack (a perl/Tk BibTeX reference manager) are a wonderful combination. DocBook tags seem to be a bit more intrusive than LaTeX ones (I do lots of php/html coding by hand, and I'd much rather write a document in LaTeX than in html), and LaTeX has been around for a long time, is very stable, and is supported on many platforms. It also produces great pdf output using dvipdfm. cheers, damon -- Damon Muller :: Department of Criminology :: University of Melbourne Did a large procession wave their torches As my head fell in the basket, And was everybody dancing on the casket... -- TBMG, "Dead"
