This is the mail archive of the
guile@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Guile project.
RE: Doc Tasks (was RE: docstrings in Guile!)
- To: "'Dale P. Smith'" <dpsm at bigbird dot en dot com>, telford at eng dot uts dot edu dot au
- Subject: RE: Doc Tasks (was RE: docstrings in Guile!)
- From: "Reynolds, Gregg" <greynolds at datalogics dot com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 11:00:06 -0600
- Cc: guile at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dale P. Smith [mailto:dpsm@bigbird.en.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 17, 1999 10:16 AM
> >
> > That's a non-free documentation owned by a publishing
> company. It is exactly
As I mentioned in another post, this is incorrect. You can read all about
it at http://www.oasis-open.org.
> When scwm went with a sgml style markup, I wanted to say
> something, but since
> I am basically incoherent I didn't. I don't want to make the
> same mistake.
Can you point to exactly what the real cost of adopting SGML was for scwm?
Not philosophy; real, concrete damage to anybody's freedom.
> Please use texinfo. Besides the above arguments, it just
> looks nicer.
Are you talking about the source? Personally I think marked up text looks
pretty ugly not matter what the markup is. If you're thinking about the
format of printed manuals, then you've a misunderstanding. SGML/XML markup
is independent of formatting, and vice-versa. One of the main reasons for
adopting it, actually.
> There
> is good support for it in emacs.
Ditto for SGML/XML.
> I believe it has grown over
> time, features
> being added as they were needed.
>
Texinfo is effectively a proprietary format; SGML/XML are public, free
formats. Not really comparable. Anyway, in the technical doc profession
texinfo doesn't even enter into the picture.
-gregg