This is the mail archive of the guile@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the Guile project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

RE: Doc Tasks (was RE: docstrings in Guile!)


> -----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

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]