Subject: Re: [docbook] Ruminations on the future of DocBook
On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 04:03:26PM +0100, Dave Pawson wrote: > 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? Hm. That's questioning the need for DocBook to exist in the first place. If the vast majority of users aren't using full semantic markup, then perhaps DocBook (the current 400+ element version) is solving a problem that people don't need solved. Sounds to me like a good case for refocusing DocBook on the structural markup consistently found in technical documentation. Semantic markup, to the extent that users *need* it, should be done through auxilliary tagsets, so at least a measure of standardization is preserved. Z.