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

[forcer <forcer at mindless dot com>]

"Greg J. Badros" <gjb@cs.washington.edu> writes:

> Valentin Kamyshenko <val@kamysh.materials.kiev.ua> writes:
> 
> > As for me, I consider the whole ideology of .sgml as a step in a wrong 
> > direction (of course, this is my subjective opinion). If I want to
> > have a good-looking document, I'd use the whole power of TeX, and
> > would not limit myself to undefined subset of tags, that are present
> > in SGML. If I want to have .html, I'll just write .html (although, as
> > for me, it is much less convenient for reading documentation, that
> > .info). If I want to have good-commented source, I use CWEB, or
> > fweb. And so on.
> 
> But the point of Docbook markup is to permit getting any of those
> formats from a single source by enriching that source substantial.

... in which it fails miserably.
How to i write \ellipsis (@dots{}) in DocBook? Not at all. How do
i tell the system that the last dot in ``The Big Evil M.C.P. is''
doesn't end the sentence, while in ``It's the M.C.P.'' it does?

Dividing layout from content is important, but not totally
feasable. TeXinfo goes the small path in between the two
extremes. And is quite successful in that.

As a side note, DocBook has special elements only for the C
language. TeXinfo has special elements for Typed and Untyped
languages, a @lisp environment, etc.

	-- forcer

-- 
((email . "forcer@mindless.com")       (www . "http://forcix.cx/")
 (irc   . "forcer@#StarWars (IRCnet)") (gpg . "/other/forcer.gpg"))