Re: [docbook] Why use DocBook when there is HTML?

[Scott Hudson <scott.hudson@flatironssolutions.com>]

Thank you for your response, Mike!

I'd like to encourage you to check out the DocBook Publishers schema 
that we have created to address this very issue!

Specification Source:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/docbook/specs/publishers-1.0-spec-cd-01.xml

Specification PDF:

http://docs.oasis-open.org/docbook/specs/publishers-1.0-spec-cd-01.pdf

Specification HTML:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/docbook/specs/publishers-1.0-spec-cd-01.html

RelaxNG Schema:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/docbook/rng/publishers/publishers.rnc


Please let me know if there is anything that you feel is still missing!

Best regards,

Scott Hudson
Chair, DocBook Publishers subcommittee

maxwell wrote:

> 
> I'll take this opportunity to say that one of the things that seems odd to
> me about DocBook is that it is targeted so explicitly at computer
> documentation.  Many of its tags make no sense outside that context.  So we
> have modified the schema not just by adding elements for linguistics and
> literate programming, but by removing many of the tags that are blatantly
> irrelevant.  Computer documentation is the sort of thing that will, in most
> cases, go out of date soon; and for that purpose, maybe Pilgrim is right
> that HTML makes sense.  But there are plenty of domains for which people
> write books that don't go out of date (ranging from poetry to archaeology),
> and for which DocBook might make more sense to people if it didn't seem so
> much like a geek's view of the world.  My 2/100 of a dollar...
> 
>    Mike Maxwell
>    CASL/ U MD
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>