Re: [docbook-apps] Re: Linux Weekly News: A quick look at Conglomerate0.70

["Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com>]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Steinar Bang wrote:

> >>>>> "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com>:
> 
> > as i mentioned, this approach doesn't change, in any way, how
> > docbook is processed.  all it does is add a pre-processing step that
> > allows you to cut down on your typing.  naturally, you'll want to
> > work with official docbook, but nothing says that you have to type
> > it in yourself. :-)
> 
> Do you use version control?  If so, which version do you check in?
> The DocBook version or the pidgin version?

i'm not using version control (yet), but when/if i do, i imagine i'd
control the pidgin stuff, since that's what i work with directly.

i invented this processing sequence for a couple of reasons.  first,
i wanted to store my actual content files in something other than 
actual docbook, given that docbook elements (like many other application
elements) are fairly verbose.  nothing wrong with that, except if you
want to go back and explicitly edit a file, all that verbiage is 
kind of overwhelming.

using an XML-aware editor can speed things up, but again, you
couldn't get away from the long element names.  using the abbreviations
makes it easier to eyeball a file and make changes with something as
simple as vi, which is what i use at the moment.

i'll check out this conglomerate product that started this whole thread,
but at the moment, i'm being pretty productive with this scheme and i'm
not in any rush to switch.

rday