Andras Simon writes:

2018-04-04 13:53 GMT+02:00, Tim via users <>:
> Allegedly, on or about 2 April 2018, Cameron Simpson sent:
>> I have to say I've very -1 on anything that uses XML as a source
>> format for human written content. It is massively hostile to
>> authoring by hand.
> As I recall, it's meant to be human understandable (and editable with a
> plain text editor), but meant to be using XML editing software for
> actually creating it.

I can't resist recommending the late Erik Naggum's xml rant (one of many):

To whet your appetite, here's a short excerpt:

"In many ways, the current American presidency and XML have much in
common.  Both have clear lineages back to very intelligent people.
Both demonstrate what happens when you give retards the tools of the

I will agree with this, in some specific circumstances. For example: this is a perfect explanation for SOAP and WSDL.

But, I find Docbook XML to be irreplacable, when it comes to writing technical documentation that serves as a single source of both manual pages and publishable HTML. And, it's infinitely hackable. Like I mentioned, with some hacking I can now easily embed links from my Docbook-based tutorials to Doxygen-generated C++ class documentation.

Attachment: pgp2nSGxPBoOc.pgp
Description: PGP signature

users mailing list --
To unsubscribe send an email to

Reply via email to