From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Emacs documentation. Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 11:19:11 +0200 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <858x6o7bow.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> 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 1191145277 14580 80.91.229.12 (30 Sep 2007 09:41:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 09:41:17 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Sep 30 11:41:13 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 1IbvIV-0002PL-MK for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 30 Sep 2007 11:41:11 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IbvIR-0007nO-LP for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 30 Sep 2007 05:41:07 -0400 Original-Path: shelby.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!multikabel.net!feed20.multikabel.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!newsfeed01.chello.at!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6, xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl \!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN; i"; /yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^ Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:1pK1Tl/vUwNXGfbpGhzFNjABnNw= Original-Lines: 76 Original-NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Sep 2007 11:19:03 CEST Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 00f1e0eb.newsspool2.arcor-online.net Original-X-Trace: DXC=bHdOdA:X7biPKPPVf; 4hUjA9EHlD; 3Ycb4Fo<]lROoRa<`=YMgDjhgbeRL9InJ92lc1_LiI6ENVam3>5MOK`; S:bhJlb\iJFX_2RGe_91Pij1CE0f Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Original-Xref: shelby.stanford.edu gnu.emacs.help:152484 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:47993 Archived-At: Alan Mackenzie writes: > 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.) Well-formed Docbook-XML can be transformed in a number of ways without further hassles. As an example, I have been able to transform the git user manual into a valid Texinfo document just by calling some converters. That's impressive. In contrast, Texinfo is something that basically happens to compile or not, given a particular version of texinfo.tex and/or makeinfo. You can also say "I don't like the look of this HTML/PDF/groff, let's try a different converter/style", something which you can't do with Texinfo. If you take a look at, say, , you'll find that the look is quite more pleasant than the HTML renditions of makeinfo. With Docbook/XML, playing with different end formats and forms might be easier: the format can be translated mechanically rather well _iff_ you are familiar with the toolchain and how to program it. > 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. Yes. >> 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. Hm, I think I draw the line differently. For me, Oxygen/XML is a special-purpose XML editor, even though it will show the source text, and Bluefish is a special-purpose HTML editor. Both can fold stuff and validate it, but so can Emacs with nxml-mode. Kile is certainly a special-purpose LaTeX editor even though it shows everything. Calling AUCTeX non-special-purpose even though it does dynamic folding of LaTeX structures, WYSIWYG rendition in the source buffer , source special support and other stuff seems sort of disingenuous. In that context, Emacs is not as much a general-purpose editor, but rather a general-purpose editing platform on top of which special-purpose editors are implemented in the form of major modes. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum