Mike Maxwell wrote:
I'll also mention that one of the things that bothers me about the current DocBook is that it seems to be so oriented towards computer documentation.
Which is good, since that is just where it originated! Of course one can pare it down, but I wonder why all
those computer-related tags in there in the first place, instead of in one or more separate add-in modules? In other words, I would like to use DB for my purpose (grammar writing) by taking a bare-bones DB and adding any modules I might need, rather than taking a "fat" DB and modifying my local schema to omit all the tags I don't need.
Then you need to persuade all the other docbook users that your usage is more important, better centre field etc, than the current set?
Along these lines, the Scope of Work on the SC webpage mentions *adding* "support for features specific to the publishing industry." My personal hope is that these additions stay in add-in modules, rather than increasing the size of the existing DB standard.
I guess we all use docbook for different purposes. If you're bothered by the high tag count, you could create your own subset, removing those elements you don't want, for your own use. Makes using a syntax directed editor easier. regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
