[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep] Format for our documents
Farrukh, Actually, I want to make sure this isn't a debate at all :-) I'm just putting an option out there. -Matt Farrukh Najmi wrote: > > 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? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > -- Matthew MacKenzie Yellow Dragon Software Corporation http://www.yellowdragonsoft.com/ m: +1 506.869.0175
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]