[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep] Format for our documents
Remember the VI Vs. Emacs wars? Editors can be a religious issue. Like you, I want to make sure this is a friendly debate and that we dont get upset over little things. Matthew MacKenzie wrote: > The OpenOffice format will likely embed all of the style information > leaving the XML as a bunch of goop. But hey...we can open it in Notepad. Nothing in open office is embedded or hidden - that is why it is called *OPEN* Office. It is all XML, pure and simple. > > > DocBook is my suggestion, and I'll point out that many technical books > are written in DocBook. Those authors manage. <joke> As my mother used to say when I used the justification "But my best friend does X all the time": If he jumps in the well should you jump in the well too? :-) </joke> Personally, I do not want to "manage". I want an editing tool that is effortless and reliable and lets me focus on the task at hand. > > > I don't want to argue this, just please take my suggestion (or leave > it). The virtues of DocBook are well documented. A well structured > document source tree, as evidenced in Norm Walsh's Docbook: The > Definitive Guide actually reduces document complexity. Since Norm is my close colleague I will ask his opinion on the subject. > > -Matt > > Farrukh Najmi wrote: > >> Matthew MacKenzie wrote: >> >>> I think that you should use DocBook. I hear it too is an OASIS spec >>> :-) >>> >>> Relying on WYSIWYG for complex technical documents scares me a >>> little bit, but that is just me. >> >> >> >> And not having a modern, state-of-the-art WYSIWYG editor for complex >> documents scares the living day lights out of me. This to me is the >> most important requirement out of the three I proposed. >> >>> Look at the W3C, what they are doing is working quite well, and they >>> use an XML format. >> >> >> >> And Open Office uses an XML format. One that is the basis for the >> Open Office Format TC and their future standard. >> >>> >>> >>> -Matt >>> >>> Farrukh Najmi wrote: >>> >>>> Changed subject title to protect the innocent... >>>> >>>> >>>>> Farrukh Najmi wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> BTW I like the idea of having HTML version of specs available >>>>>> online. I propose we do this for our specs as well. Any objections? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Duane Nickull wrote: >>>> >>>>> Docbook? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Actually all I was thinking is to save the document as HTML. This >>>> is a cheap and mindless act. >>>> >>>> The current spec source in in Word. It has several problems due to >>>> limitations in Word for large documents. Longer term I would like >>>> to move away from Word. I was thinking of Open Office which is the >>>> basis for the Open Office Format TC: >>>> >>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=office >>>> >>>> Important criterea for choice of formats are: >>>> >>>> -Open format (ideally XML) >>>> >>>> -WYSIWYG Editors that are useable and reliable >>>> >>>> -Ideally freely available software >>>> >>>> Open Office meets each of the above requirements. Software is >>>> freely available from: >>>> >>>> http://www.openoffice.org >>>> >>>> Also since it can open Word formats migration from Word to Open >>>> Office would be relatively painless. >>>> >>>> What do people (and specialy Sally) think? >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > -- Farrukh
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]