From: Doug du Boulay [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DOCBOOK: Re: On the size of DocBook...
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 11:28:35 +0900
If you make it modular, so that someone can create and install ChemBook
or
MusicBook, then it satisfies 2 and 3. Since users are likely
On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 05:20:38AM +, Matt G. wrote:
This may not please application developers, but I think that users who
don't care enough about semantics that they would use a wysiwyg-style
editor don't typically need domain-specific semantics. Just create a
core DocBook that has
. september 2002 01:04
To: Adam Turoff
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: DOCBOOK: Re: On the size of DocBook...
/ Adam Turoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say:
|On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 05:14:18PM -0400, Norman Walsh wrote:
| Quite. Hard that is. And it would introduce N! different DocBooks.
| How
On Sunday 08 September 2002 14:20, Matt G. wrote:
At 09:39 2002 09 05 -0400, Norman Walsh wrote:
A few things occur to me.
1. The difference between 400 elements and 800 elements isn't
significant, just add 'em all.
Doesn't scale. Adding them is work. Maintaining them is more work. Why
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 03:24:09PM -0400, Norman Walsh wrote:
Why is Simplified DocBook easier to use than full DocBook?
1. Because when you open the DTD in emacs and read the content models,
it's smaller.
2. Because the user documentation for Simplified lists fewer elements.
3.
Adam Turoff wrote:
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 03:24:09PM -0400, Norman Walsh wrote:
Compelling anecdotal stuff about trying to introduce DocBook to new
users snipped out./
Just for kicks, how difficult would it be to refactor DocBook into
a simple core (based on Simplified DocBook, or the
At 22:14 06/09/2002, Norman Walsh wrote:
/ Adam Turoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say:
[...]
Taking things slightly out of order...
| Just for kicks, how difficult would it be to refactor DocBook into
| a simple core (based on Simplified DocBook, or the moral equivalent),
| and implement
At 00:03 07/09/2002, Norman Walsh wrote:
| I suspect it wouldn't be difficult at all. Most of that work is
| already done in TDG. Identifying the most important core 25-50
| elements might be a little tricky,
I tried to identify the core 25-50 elements, I wound up with more than 100.
Start