On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 10:10:59AM +0200, Michael Piefel wrote: > Actually, I really like the idea of docbook. Rather, I liked it when I > just had had a quick look at it. I'm not so sure now. My docbook files > all look so unreadable, and it's certainly hard to write: > <funcsynopsis> > <funcprototype> > <funcdef>int <function>max</function></funcdef> > <paramdef>int <parameter>int1</parameter></paramdef> > <paramdef>int <parameter>int2</parameter></paramdef> > </funcprototype> > </funcsynopsis> Actually, there is a simplified docbook DTD which is more suited to the type of things you're doing (man pages and the like), but it is not really meant as a gentle introduction to docbook - just an abridged DTD. If you are already comfortable with the tools and structure of docbook, you may well find the simplified DTD to be exactly what you need. > Of course, you don't have to use all this, but what's the point of > docbook then? I admit I still prefer groff-manpages, though my knowledge > of groff is limited. I'm happier with docbook really since it reformats more easily. I am not real adept with writing either, but I can remember more docbook tags without looking them up than I can groff tags. .WTF ? =) -- Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@bluecherry.net> Sooner or later, BOOM! <SirDibos> Culus: are you awake? <Culus> no
Attachment:
pgpqdAG1MzB0l.pgp
Description: PGP signature