Just use the easiest tool that does the job, it all depends on what you need. Apt
is easy to learn and use (especially for people who are allergic to xml), but in
turn it also lacks in flexibility and misses advanced functionality, eg (from the
top of my head):
- no styles (css)
- no javascript
- no inline images (icons)
- no figures as links
- no advanced formatting and layout (eg tables)
- no meta-information
If you need any of those, you'd have to use eg xdoc or direct xhtml. Xdoc lets you
do all of the above (plus the things you mention: snippets and .vm macros), but is
also more complicated and, for some, harder to read.
Cheers,
-Lukas
nsowatsk wrote:
We use APT as it is easy to use and has features like snippets that allow us
to include code in the documents.
Of course you can also use html in the resources directory also, so using
APT doesn't mean that's all you get.
APT also allows you to create .apt.vm files that can contain macros that do
funky stuff (when they work at all).
Regards
Nathan
On 28/07/2009 20:46, "EJ Ciramella" <[email protected]> wrote:
So a discussion has popped up here as to why use apt, xdoc or fml over
just plain html.
I (personally) think it's easier to just throw together APT docs REALLY
fast and not worry about various components (css and such).
How do I sell apt as the format to use?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
