On 15 Nov 2002, Dietmar Maurer wrote:
> > 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.
That pure FUD. Hope you've heard about CSS and the class
attribute: If _strict_ HTML4 or _strict_ XHTML is used it's easily
possible to write XSLT stylesheets converting the docs into a reasonable
subset of for instance docbook.
Well: What's wrong with docbook?
1) to view formated docbook on the screen you'll need a
postprocessor
2) to postprocess docbook you'll need the right version of
bloated sgml tool plus you'll need the proper version of
zillions of stylesheets and dtds installed at the right place
3) to take advantage of docbook you'll have to learn a bloated
overcomplicated dtd
What's better with docbook?
1) Each computer today comes with software capable to preview HTML
on the view -- no bloated extrasoftware needed
2) if you wish to layout HTML content based it's as easy as adding
few class attributes and writing a CSS using a bloody simple
syntax
Ciao,
Mathias
PS: <rant>ever asked yourself why today's browsers render HTML and not the
"superiour" docbook?</rant>
--
WWW: http://taschenorakel.de/mathias/
PGP/GnuPG: 1024-Bit DSA: ID 55E572F3, 1024-Bit RSA: ID EAAF7CF1
"e:-1" is the Slashdot Troll Emoticon. Often seen after the word "Scor"
_______________________________________________
Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
