Re: [docbook] DocBook SCs

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

Mike Maxwell wrote:

> I'll also mention that one of the things that bothers me about the 
> current DocBook is that it seems to be so oriented towards computer 
> documentation. 

Which is good, since that is just where it originated!


  Of course one can pare it down, but I wonder why all
> those computer-related tags in there in the first place, instead of in 
> one or more separate add-in modules?  In other words, I would like to 
> use DB for my purpose (grammar writing) by taking a bare-bones DB and 
> adding any modules I might need, rather than taking a "fat" DB and 
> modifying my local schema to omit all the tags I don't need.

Then you need to persuade all the other docbook users that your usage
is more important, better centre field etc, than the current set?


> 
> Along these lines, the Scope of Work on the SC webpage mentions *adding* 
> "support for features specific to the publishing industry."  My personal 
> hope is that these additions stay in add-in modules, rather than 
> increasing the size of the existing DB standard.

I guess we all use docbook for different purposes.
If you're bothered by the high tag count, you could create
your own subset, removing those elements you don't want,
for your own use.
   Makes using a syntax directed editor easier.






regards

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk