Daniel Dekany wrote: > > I said, neither A or B takes spacing="compact" into consideration. The > only difference is that B uses vertical margin around listitems > (always), while A (the current one) doesn't. Hence B resembles more to > the typical final output (PDF, HTML, etc). So, as I said, there are > two question here, and they are independent. So, what do you say for > the first question, i.e. A VS B (again, neither cares about > spacing="compact")?
Sorry I didn't understand that. OK, neither A or B cares about spacing="compact", but B resembles more to the typical final output. > > ??? Supporting spacing="compact" is not like signing a contract that > you will support everything. If you *can* show one more thing about > the document content with a trivial CSS change, then why not? It's > just improvement (that's trivial to implement), a bit better > out-of-the-box DocBook editing in XXE. And you want to improve your > product, don't you? Let's say you are right but that we are currently working on other features and that we have no time to improve the DocBook CSS, even when the suggested changes are trivial to implement. > > I understand that. But I hope you don't hold aloof from improving the > included CSS. > > In general, I find it strange that you guys don't seem to target being > as good DocBook editor out-of-the-box as you can. Or at all. Like if > you had signed something that says "XXE must remain a non-professional > DocBook editor". Even if you don't invest a lot into it, you should at > least try to pick the low hanging fruits, shouldn't you? We don't function like that. > BTW, you have mentioned earlier your competitor. May I ask who is that? Sure. Syntext Serna. See http://www.syntext.com/products/serna/. Note that I never tested it. > I did a research before choosing DocBook editor (including commercial > ones), and I didn't find anything that was even near as good for the > task as XXE. (However, I hadn't have chance to try ArborText's stuff, > so I don't know about that... but however good it is, I suspect that's > a very expensive software.) So I think you are in a good starting > position on the XDocBook editor field. It appears to me that XDocBook > is more and more dominant for project documentations (like for OSS > projects, and you have an OSS friendly licence). These authors need a > good XDocBook editor a lot... I can tell you that, because I have > written many XDocBook software documentation. There is a vacuum here. > So I don't think you head toward bankruptcy if you invest a bit into > the DocBook thing, rather I think the opposite. Nowadays, every single XML Editor/Structured Authoring Tool is supposed to support DocBook very well. I see no vacuum at all. However, to my knowledge, only * Vex (Open Source -- See http://vex.sourceforge.net/) * XMLmind XML Editor (free-to-use Standard Edition) * May be in the future, Etna (Open Source -- See http://rhaptos.org/downloads/editing/etna/0.3.1/) are free to use. (I've omitted ``non-styled'' editors. I've also ommited the now defunct Morphon.)
