Re: SGML tools aren't so great

[David Lawyer <dave@lafn.org>]

(I know this reply is much delayed for various reasons.)
> pac1@tiac.net wrote:
> 
First of all "SGML" includes DocBook and LinuxDoc.  LinuxDoc is simple
and easy to learn/use, while DocBook is much harder.  But DocBook is
much more powerful.  Thus asserting that SGML is easy or difficult is
an ambiguous statement since it all depends on which flavor of SGML
you are talking about.

On Thu, May 04, 2000 at 07:27:38PM -0700, Gary Preckshot wrote:
[snip]
> One of the central
> assumptions in the SGML debate has been that anyone who isn't crazy
> about SGML couldn't possibly be a good HOWTO author. 

This is an exaggeration and no one actually claimed exactly this.  I
agree that if one can't readily figure out how to use LinuxDoc after
being supplied with the documentation for it (along with
example.sgml), then they likely can't write good documentation either.
This statement may not hold for DocBook.  It's not hard to understand
but there are so many nested tags that the raw "source code" looks
cluttered (unless you have a editor that can handle this).

			David Lawyer


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org