Use of SGML for documentation (Re: potato -> woody upgrade not smooth...)
(Followups to debian-sgml, please)
On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 12:04:38AM -0400, mdanish@andrew.cmu.edu wrote:
> Bleh, I knew someone would say this. Whenever I hear SGML or any *ML in
> which the ML does not stand for Meta-Language, my Buzz-Word alarm goes off.
> I'm highly suspicious of SGML, and it's relative worth. It's got clunky
> syntax, and while LaTeX has it's flaws it's a hellalot more powerful.
LaTeX is for preparing documents to be typeset, while SGML is for generalized
text markup. It's the right tool for the job. Install the debiandoc-sgml
package, and take a look at the SGML source for (e.g.) the debian-policy
package.
Turn of your Buzz-Word alarm for a few minutes and give it a chance. Use it to
generate latex with debiandoc2latex, and printed output via DVI. Use it to
generate texinfo, HTML and plain text.
For comparison purposes, you may wish to run some of your LaTeX documents
through latex2html, and perhaps the result through w3m to generate text.
Marvel at all of the typesetting commands that have been lost.
SGML is for defining document structure, not placing text on a page. I think
you'll agree that the former is what you want to do with your documentation,
not the latter.
> And if I want to write data in an easily manipulatable form, I use Lisp.
I refuse to believe that you're advocating writing documentation in LISP.
--
- mdz
Reply to: