"Mark A. Flacy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Miles> I've never written a document in docbook, but for the same > Miles> reason it looks like pure drudgery to write if you're not using > Miles> rather heavy editor magic. > > I have. I've never written a texinfo document (at all) but I cannot > imagine that to be an improvement over docbook.
It's certainly far more _readable_ as source than docbook. Much of this is simple brevity, which incidentally helps authors too. > Miles> I would never consider docbook an acceptable source form as > Miles> long as people expect to able to reasonably edit the sources as > Miles> raw text. > > A vanishingly small number of potential markup languages fit that bill. Actually many do: texinfo, scribe, latex (slightly less obvious because of the weird quirks latex inherits from tex, but still, simple latex is, well, simple, and readable). It is more common in "classic" markup languages, I suppose partly because more people use magic editors these days instead of plain text markup languages, and partly because the xml/sgml disease has spread recently. -Miles -- Come now, if we were really planning to harm you, would we be waiting here, beside the path, in the very darkest part of the forest? _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
