On Fri, 2002-11-15 at 16:04, Miguel de Icaza wrote: > Hello, > > > About why use Docbook: it's not really for the output, is for > > structuring the content. The semantic markup is content in the same way > > text is. XHTML could do the same? If you use poor docbook markup the > > answer is yes, but at the first moment you use more high semantic > > meaning marks the answer is definitively no. > > I am sure that you can do great things by using the right structure, but > DocBook documents are a pain to produce, edit and maintain.
Your view of things, I cant agree here. > To make things worse, even if you get the right layout, I have never > seen a Docbook output that looks remotely decent. So given the choice > of pain, structure and butt-ugly vs easy, somewhat-structured and easily > pretificable, the choice is obvious. I have already seen some nice Docbook documents. The layout is not perfect, but good enough. > > About quality docbook output: I don't find it particularly horrible. I > > agree there is very important problems caused by the TeX back-end for > > the PDF/PS output. But this backend is being rewritten these days in the > > XSL side[1]. The HTML output is very beautiful instead. Another very > > important point is the docbook stylesheets are internationalized into > > lots of languages. This mean the presentation will respect the national > > language ortho-typographical rules. > > My suggestion is to use plain HTML, and in the future, and when the > documents are finished, and you have not spent days fighting docbook, > you can have a volunteer with lots of time to do the conversion. Big > deal. HTML --> ugly output + missing features :-( Cant see any advantage with html. - Dietmar _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
