From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Emacs documentation. Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 22:04:26 +0000 Message-ID: <20070929220426.GB1894@muc.de> References: <85ve9t6y1n.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1191103257 27679 80.91.229.12 (29 Sep 2007 22:00:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 22:00:57 +0000 (UTC) Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Sep 30 00:00:53 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IbkMm-0003cm-9f for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 30 Sep 2007 00:00:52 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IbkMi-0003K0-Fa for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 29 Sep 2007 18:00:48 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IbkMP-0003HC-9x for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Sep 2007 18:00:29 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IbkMM-0003Fe-34 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Sep 2007 18:00:28 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IbkML-0003Fb-UB for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Sep 2007 18:00:25 -0400 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1] helo=mail.muc.de) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IbkML-0003DC-7e for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Sep 2007 18:00:25 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 2444 invoked by uid 3782); 29 Sep 2007 22:00:23 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p57B1DBC3.dip.t-dialin.net [87.177.219.195]) by colin2.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Sun, 30 Sep 2007 00:00:21 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 4686 invoked by uid 1000); 29 Sep 2007 22:04:26 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <85ve9t6y1n.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.5 (Fettercairn) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de X-Detected-Kernel: FreeBSD 4.6-4.9 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:47989 Archived-At: 'nAbend, David! On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 10:01:40PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: >looked at Alan Mackenzie writes: > >>Go ask around the OSS world what's being used for documentation. > > Why? > Because you'll find that any XML-based process would be rather unusual > (at least ouside of the Java world). Man-pages, hand-written HTML, > plain text files, Texinfo, LaTeX and other stuff are more prevalent. That's what I would've thought. Given the existence of, in particular, TeX and LaTeX, I really don't understand what the point of Docbook is. (That's NOT a rhetorical comment.) What has irritated me about David P.'s posts is he seems to assume that Docbook doesn't need justification - it is the Right Thing for any documentation application, and it is somehow not done to ask questions about it. I'm still hoping he'll come back with some answers. [ .... ] > The long dampeners on Trabant were actually a good complement to the > lousy road quality in the GDR. Imported cars suffered from a higher > probability of breakdowns because they were less well suited to the > potholes there. How things have changed since 1989! [ .... ] > >>> I suspect most Docbook writers actually use special purpose > >>> editors to create their source code, rather than Emacs or vi. > >>Emacs has done for me for the last ten years. > > Do most Docbook writers use special purpose editors or don't they? > To be fair: people using Emacs _are_ generally using a special purpose > editor (in the form of a good major mode). Even LaTeX is not > uncommonly written with special purpose editors and modes. I didn't express myself very well. I think what I meant by "special purpose editor" was one that interprets the XML data structure and hides it from the user, much like Open Office does with ODF. I contrast this with an editor where you actually see and edit the raw XML file, possibly with the help of a good major mode. I suppose it's analogous to the difference between editing Elisp source files and hacking through the internal form created by the Lisp reader. I don't think that Emacs developers would be willing to learn such a special purpose editor, just to write Info-MkII documents with. > So if you want to get more relevant numbers, you probably should ask > on some vi user group, as that sort of editor can't be tailored as > well to the task. How many of those would write Texinfo and LaTeX > with their favorite general purpose editor, but revert to special > systems for XML writing? > I suppose still some, but have no hard numbers. Nor me. > David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum -- Alan Mackenzie (Ittersbach, Germany).