On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 18:51:41 -0400
Jack Carroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 06:03:25PM +0200, Attila Kinali wrote:
>
> > > A format that converts well to both PDF and HTML and looks good in
> > > both cases would be preferable.
> >
> > Both latex and docbook do. Both are in that sense pretty much
> > equivalent. Actualy both can be converted into eachother with
> > some scripts (+/- some formats). Personally i prefere latex
> > over docbook as it cluters the text less with formating strings
> > but that's somewhat like C vs Pascal.
>
>
> I'm going to stick my neck out a little here, and argue that docbook
> is more of a cross-platform format, and therefore editable and outputtable
> on more op systems. Also, more people understand XML syntax than latex.
Depends on who you ask. Nearly all academics know LaTeX, while hardly
any know XML. On the other side, software devels quite often know XML
while only a few know LaTeX. As i said, it's know an issue which one
is better know or not, what's matter is which one the very people who
will write the doc know.
Also portability is not an issue, as both DocBook and LaTeX run
on all major systems these days (at least they should).
To emphasise it again: do not decide on whether LaTeX or DocBook
is better supported, more widely spread or anything, decide on
whether the people who have to use it know it.
<side_note>
Just in case not everyone here is familiar with the OSS development
models from a practical point of view. OSS development highly depends
on whether you are able to motivate the right people to do the work.
Where the right people are those with the knowledge and who actualy
do something.
Motivation can come from anything, but the most important source
is an aim for something, may it be to get a "free" graphics card
or the knowledge about the inner workings of one.
Motivation can be destroyed quite easily by too much administrative
work, tools that are not easy to work with (which is very subjective!)
or key figures who are inable to do team work.
That's why you should always follow the advice of those who are
the importante (ie knowledgable and working) people in the project
to keep them happy.
</side_note>
> If someone can save me a little time by suggesting some specific
> authoring packages to consider, I'm willing to test a candidate or two and
> report back to the group. Linux-compatible authoring packages only, please.
> I have Debian and Gentoo installed, if that matters.
> Any editor plus Subversion ought to give us shared authorship
> capability, shouldn't it?
Do not focus on editing tools, they are not important. Actualy
they are the most unimportant thing. Everyone will use another tool
who he is confident with. What does matter is whether the source
(after it has been written) can be easily converted to a format
that we'd like and how well that formating suits us.
(beside the preferences of those who will write the docs whichs
importance exceedes anything else)
Attila Kinali
--
éãåããéãåã
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
