Denis Bradford wrote:
As a writer who uses both every day, I would look elsewhere for relative
strengths and weaknesses. For example, in DITA's favor I might point out
its small tag set...
IMO, DocBook's "swiss army knife" flexibility is a Good Thing in a
modular XML publishing system. From this standpoint, adding a
well-considered topic model is one more useful refinement to DocBook.
When a Swiss Army Knife has too many tools, it's hard to find the right
one; all the blades you don't want get in the way.
I know there's work going on on a simplified DocBook. Has any thought
been given to modularizing DB, in the sense of having a core (which
would probably be the simplified DB) and modules (for software/ hardware
documentation, maybe this topic model, and who knows what else--maybe
linguistics and computational linguistics (my thing), chemistry,...)?
It would be similar to the idea of having programming libraries (the
Python model), rather than cramming everything into the main language
(the Common Lisp/ Ada model).
(Yes, I do know that I can omit elements. We do that--lots of it.)
--
Mike Maxwell
What good is a universe without somebody around to look at it?
--Robert Dicke, Princeton physicist
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-apps-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-apps-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
