I'd agree - OOo on my box is total crap for docbook - like worse than Word for HTML.
Larry On 10/3/06, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think Brandon was suggesting we continue to use OOo with DocBook. I can attest to the poor quality of the DocBook output from OOo.... But it's a good way to start. We can export to DocBook, then clean it up (a lot). From that point on, we use XXE or a text editor... Cheers, Clinton On 10/3/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/2/06, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > DocBook -- currently the choice of iBATIS.NET documentation. It excels at > > "diffability" and multi-format including great PDF and HTML output. But it > > fails at ease of use / familiarity and therefore participation and quick > > changes/deployment as well. All other criteria are met but not exceeded. > > DocBook with OpenOffice seems like a fair option. > > One thing to watch is whether systems like XMLMind format the > underlying content in the same way. We'd want to avoid unnecessary > cruft on the checkins, so if everyone is OK with OpenOffice, that > might make for the best default editor. > > The OO XML format is not the friendliest for a change log, since it > doesn't wrap lines, but it does seem like the lesser of evils. > > DocBook is also compatible with systems like Maven and Forrest, should > that ever come up. > > -Ted. >
