Re: [docbook] Ruminations on the future of DocBook

[Dave Pawson <dpawson@nildram.co.uk>]

At 14:55 30/05/2003 -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:

> >   My question then is, would that level of semantic markup be valuable in
> > usage?
>
>Um, isn't that the whole point of DocBook?  If that level of semantic
>markup (which exists today), then why aren't people marking up their
>class documentation with <literal> and <emphasis>?  (Or are they?)

Pragmatic? Speed?
The effort and time needed for full semantic markup with todays element
set is very high. My question is simply are users getting good value
for that time spent?



> > I have this nasty suspicion that many... some... a few
> > users, chose docbook because:
> >   1. Its XML (durable)
> >   2. Produces HTML and print.
> > and the elements used are to [some... large..] extent chosen based on the
> > output?
> > I could be wrong.
>
>I don't understand your concern.  Are you inferring that namespaced
>extensions to DocBook *wouldn't* have a canonical display in HTML/Print?

Not so much a concern, simply a statement of opinion.
Many of the docbook apps questions relate to how something appears
from the styled output.



>As a foundation vocabulary, DocBook and it's core stylesheets would
>still be immensely useful: hard things like tables and chunking would
>always be available via the core format.

Agreed 100%. Perhaps 'valuable' rather than available.

regards DaveP