[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: DOCBOOK: Technical DTDs vs. non-technical
Alvaro Siman <alsiman@sppe.com> writes: > DocBook was "primarily written for books about computer software and > hardware". "Because its main structures correspond to the general > notion of what constitutes a "book,", it is assumed that it > automatically addresses the needs of Literature in general. > > However, this may not be true about 'humanistic' subject matter. > Assuming that "literature" covers the whole spectrum of the written > word, therefore it automatically covers any of its subsets is not > exactly correct. If that were so, there wouldn't be a specific need > for MathML, or LegalML, or any other of the XML specializations. I would have to agree here. I think in some ways, it breaks the spirit of SGML/XML to use DocBook outside the scope of computer related documentation. I do not know of a DTD that specifically meets the needs of what you are asking for - nor do I think this is the forum. Perhaps the comp.text.sgml newsgroup would be better. Dave
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC