OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

docbook message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: Re: DOCBOOK: docbook vs latex

On Monday 02 September 2002 20:20, Jirka Kosek wrote:
> Doug du Boulay wrote:
> > Sorry. I dont think I do see that point.
> > It seems to me that mathematics is more fundamental and common to
> > all of historianism(?), medicine, economics and in fact all of science
> > including software documentation than, say the object oriented
> > elements of DocBook.
> Please, please, don't start flamewar.

Sorry about. No flames were intended.  I value your efforts  on everyones 
behalf, especially mine, too much. Maybe my wording was bad and the 
views expressed a tad idealistic. 

> If you use mathematics just like support tool -- for example you are
> writing some formulas estimating memory and time efficiency of some
> algorithm, current support of DocBook (equation and inlineequation
> elements with MathML module) is IMHO sufficient.

There is some degree of inappropriateness in refering to mathematical 
variables and expressions as <inlineequation>. Equations have equality 
signs (dont they?)

> Maybe I'm missing something, but why you need elements like
> <maththeorem> when documenting scientific program? I understand that you
> must insert equations in your document, but for this case there is
> existing markup in DocBook. But if you are writing math paper in DocBook
> you may be in wrong shop with stock DocBook.

I can certainly see uses for <mathexample>, but whether that would be
better as <example role="math"> or <mathexample role="counterexample">
I am not knowledgable enough to say.

But, for documenting scientific programs 
the algorithms are very important
the theories behind the algorithms are very important and 
the theorems behind the theories are probably much less important, 
but nevertheless valuable pedagogical tools.
Often it is necessary to educate users in the reasons why they 
should use one particular computational approach to solving a problem rather
than another. If they have all the information at hand their educational
experience should be enhanced. If that requires theorems sobeit.
Of course there is an increasing tendency toward black box approaches 
requiring no thought on the part of users. No thought, no manual, no 

On Monday 02 September 2002 00:37, John R. Daily wrote:
> LaTeX produces very attractive printed output, and does a superb
> job with mathematical constructs.  DocBook offers tremendous
> power and flexibility, but does not currently compete well with
> LaTeX in those areas.

My understanding was that DocBook output was a product of the
toolchain and not DocBook itself.  We should expect the tools
to improve in due course. On the other hand the DocBook mathematical 
construct deficiencies could probably be addressed rather quickly once 
they were identified (and perhaps Ramon has already done that part).

Then the recurring thread of DocBook versus LaTeX might 
eventually become redundant.

If a small number  of new elements fully addresses the mathematical 
imbalance, I dont see how that could be bad.  On the other hand if 
modularization is possible and necessary, then great.
I was basically just worried about DocBook splintering into a hundred
different  incompatible variants with limited supportive toolchains for each, 
dbtexmath and db2latex being two of them already.

I hoped it might be discussed a little further and not dismissed out of hand. 
No offence was ever intended.
appreciative thanks to all concerned and best regards

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Powered by eList eXpress LLC