DocBook exporter for Org-mode

DocBook exporter for Org-mode

[Baoqiu Cui]

[-- Attachment #1: message body text --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1753 bytes --]

Hello Dominik,

I am a big fan of your wonderful Org-mode, even though I just started to
use it two weeks ago.  I've been using (X)Emacs since 1995, and had
tried to use Muse about 2-3 years ago for note-taking and simple
publishing (i.e. generating LaTeX or DocBook documents from Muse).
However, I remember I ran into some serious limitations (like list
handling, etc.) in Muse and finally gave up on it.  I went back to
writing documentation directly in either LaTeX or DocBook (I use nXML
mode for DocBook editing).

Org-mode impressed me with its nice table editing functionality,
flexible/powerful list support and headline (or section/subsection)
manipulations, and *many* other features.  I really appreciate your work
on this valuable package, and foresee that I will be doing many more
things in Org-mode.

The only thing that is missing (at least to me) in current Org-mode is
the exporter for DocBook format.  DocBook is becoming more and more
popular, so a DocBook exporter in Org-mode could make more people move
to Org-mode.  Also, since there are a lot open-source or commercial
tools to convert DocBook format to almost any other formats (PDF,
PostScript, HTML, XHTML, Text, RTF, etc.), DocBook exporter could be the
main exporter that Org-mode needs to support.

During the last week (mainly during the last weekend), I wrote some code
to export Org files to DocBook V5.0 format, and everything looks very
promising (I have to admit that a lot of work still needs to be done to
make the code complete and stable) .  I am wondering how I can
contribute the code to Org-mode.

I am attaching a PDF file generated from a DocBook XML file that was
exported by my org-export-docbook.el, and would like to get your early
feedback/comments.


[-- Attachment #2: test.pdf --]
[-- Type: application/pdf, Size: 45287 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: message body text --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 17 bytes --]


Regards,
Baoqiu

[-- Attachment #4: Type: text/plain, Size: 204 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: DocBook exporter for Org-mode

[Baoqiu Cui]

Baoqiu Cui writes:
 > Hello Dominik,

Sorry, I meant "Prof. Dominik".  The email address misled me. :-)

Baoqiu

 > use it two weeks ago.  I've been using (X)Emacs since 1995, and had
 > tried to use Muse about 2-3 years ago for note-taking and simple
 > publishing (i.e. generating LaTeX or DocBook documents from Muse).
 > However, I remember I ran into some serious limitations (like list
 > handling, etc.) in Muse and finally gave up on it.  I went back to
 > writing documentation directly in either LaTeX or DocBook (I use nXML
 > mode for DocBook editing).
 > 
 > Org-mode impressed me with its nice table editing functionality,
 > flexible/powerful list support and headline (or section/subsection)
 > manipulations, and *many* other features.  I really appreciate your work
 > on this valuable package, and foresee that I will be doing many more
 > things in Org-mode.
 > 
 > The only thing that is missing (at least to me) in current Org-mode is
 > the exporter for DocBook format.  DocBook is becoming more and more
 > popular, so a DocBook exporter in Org-mode could make more people move
 > to Org-mode.  Also, since there are a lot open-source or commercial
 > tools to convert DocBook format to almost any other formats (PDF,
 > PostScript, HTML, XHTML, Text, RTF, etc.), DocBook exporter could be the
 > main exporter that Org-mode needs to support.
 > 
 > During the last week (mainly during the last weekend), I wrote some code
 > to export Org files to DocBook V5.0 format, and everything looks very
 > promising (I have to admit that a lot of work still needs to be done to
 > make the code complete and stable) .  I am wondering how I can
 > contribute the code to Org-mode.
 > 
 > I am attaching a PDF file generated from a DocBook XML file that was
 > exported by my org-export-docbook.el, and would like to get your early
 > feedback/comments.
 > 
 > 
 > Regards,
 > Baoqiu

Re: DocBook exporter for Org-mode

[Dale Smith]

Baoqiu Cui <cbaoqiu@yahoo.com> writes:

> The only thing that is missing (at least to me) in current Org-mode is
> the exporter for DocBook format.

There is quite a bit of similarity between org and muse formats.  I've
found that I can edit .muse files in org-mode and stiil publish to
docbook.


> During the last week (mainly during the last weekend), I wrote some code
> to export Org files to DocBook V5.0 format, and everything looks very
> promising (I have to admit that a lot of work still needs to be done to
> make the code complete and stable) .

Looks pretty good to me.  I'm ready to ty it out!

-Dale

-- 
Dale P. Smith
dales@vtiinstruments.com
216-447-4059 x2018
216-447-8951 FAX

(Company mandated disclaimer follows...)

The information in this e-mail and any attachments is intended solely
for use by the recipient(s) to whom this e-mail is addressed and may
contain confidential and/or privileged information which is exempt
from disclosure.  If you are not an intended recipient, or an employee
or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this e-mail
and any attachments in error and that dissemination, distribution,
review or copying of this e-mail and its attachments is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify
the sender immediately and delete all electronic and paper copies of
this e-mail as well as any attachments.
Thank you.

http://www.vtiinstruments.com/images/vtiemaillogo.gif

Re: Re: DocBook exporter for Org-mode

[Sebastian Rose]

docbook is great since it's widely used. 

The output looks good!

How could we test it?
And could we configure it somehow?




Anyway, I'd prefere to export to _one_ XML format from Org-mode and
provide xslt stylesheets to translate between different formats.

That way we all would concentrate on one XML exporter (e.g. the XHTML
exporter) and could provide xslt stylesheets to transform the output.

This would guaranty a slitely more complete and bugfree export, which is
configured from one org-publish-project-alist.

Regards,

   Sebastian



Dale Smith <dales@vxitech.com> writes:
> Baoqiu Cui <cbaoqiu@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> The only thing that is missing (at least to me) in current Org-mode is
>> the exporter for DocBook format.
>
> There is quite a bit of similarity between org and muse formats.  I've
> found that I can edit .muse files in org-mode and stiil publish to
> docbook.
>
>
>> During the last week (mainly during the last weekend), I wrote some code
>> to export Org files to DocBook V5.0 format, and everything looks very
>> promising (I have to admit that a lot of work still needs to be done to
>> make the code complete and stable) .
>
> Looks pretty good to me.  I'm ready to ty it out!
>
> -Dale

-- 
Sebastian Rose, EMMA STIL - mediendesign, Niemeyerstr.6, 30449 Hannover
Tel.:  +49 (0)511 - 36 58 472
Fax:   +49 (0)1805 - 233633 - 11044
mobil: +49 (0)173 - 83 93 417
Email: s.rose@emma-stil.de, sebastian_rose@gmx.de
Http:  www.emma-stil.de

Re: Re: DocBook exporter for Org-mode

[Sebastian Rose]

Sebastian Rose <sebastian_rose@gmx.de> writes:
> Anyway, I'd prefere to export to _one_ XML format from Org-mode and
> provide xslt stylesheets to translate between different formats.
>
> That way we all would concentrate on one XML exporter (e.g. the XHTML
> exporter) and could provide xslt stylesheets to transform the output.
>
> This would guaranty a slitely more complete and bugfree export, which is
> configured from one org-publish-project-alist.


I think we would find hundreds of xslt stylesheets on the web to
transform Docbook to virtually any format.

... google google ...

Opendocument:
  http://open.comsultia.com/docbook2odf/ - toolkit
  http://sourceforge.net/projects/docbook2odf

XHTML
  There seems to be a standard stylesheet included in the Docbook
  distribution for generating XHTML as this mail says (the link in there
  is dead though):
  http://www.stylusstudio.com/xmldev/200012/post30530.html

RTF
  Also included in the standarrd distro

http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=docbook





Will we loose the features of htmlize.el?
I'm not familiar with the Docbook DTD - I know it includes lots of
elements. How about time/date types, Programming types (string,
variable, class, function....)?

Wouldn't it be easier to transform the XHTML to docbook through xslt?
The types are not lost, since all types that emacs is aware of, are
exported as <span class="type">...</span>.





--
Sebastian Rose, EMMA STIL - mediendesign, Niemeyerstr.6, 30449 Hannover
Tel.:  +49 (0)511 - 36 58 472
Fax:   +49 (0)1805 - 233633 - 11044
mobil: +49 (0)173 - 83 93 417
Email: s.rose@emma-stil.de, sebastian_rose@gmx.de
Http:  www.emma-stil.de

Re: DocBook exporter for Org-mode

[Baoqiu Cui]

Dale Smith <dales@vxitech.com> writes:

> Baoqiu Cui <cbaoqiu@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> The only thing that is missing (at least to me) in current Org-mode is
>> the exporter for DocBook format.
>
> There is quite a bit of similarity between org and muse formats.  I've
> found that I can edit .muse files in org-mode and stiil publish to
> docbook.

Yes, Muse and Org-mode do have some similarity.  While Muse is mainly
for publishing, Org-mode focuses on many other things beyond some good
publishing functionality.  Since Org-mode already has a very good
publishing framework in its HTML exporter , it is relatively easy (a
small step) to make Org-mode a strong publishing environment too.

I have not used Muse in the past 2+ years.  Don't know whether it has
got much improvement...  It's a nice trick to edit .muse files in
Org-mode. :-)

>> During the last week (mainly during the last weekend), I wrote some code
>> to export Org files to DocBook V5.0 format, and everything looks very
>> promising (I have to admit that a lot of work still needs to be done to
>> make the code complete and stable) .
>
> Looks pretty good to me.  I'm ready to ty it out!

Thanks.  I'll work on the code a little bit more during the weekend and
post it to the group.

Baoqiu

Re: DocBook exporter for Org-mode

[Paul R]

Hi,

Sebastian> Anyway, I'd prefere to export to _one_ XML format from
Sebastian> Org-mode and provide xslt stylesheets to translate between
Sebastian> different formats.

Sebastian> That way we all would concentrate on one XML exporter (e.g.
Sebastian> the XHTML exporter) and could provide xslt stylesheets to
Sebastian> transform the output.

Sebastian> This would guaranty a slitely more complete and bugfree
Sebastian> export, which is configured from one
Sebastian> org-publish-project-alist.

Yes, I also think this is a better way of exporting.

The nice thing about org-mode export system is the output-specific
regions (like between begin_latex and end_latex) that allow to stay
working in the org version of your document for more time. Final output
hand tuning is often necessary, but it is nice to push this step back if
possible.

Pandoc is good also, and LaTeX can be inlined as well :
http://johnmacfarlane.net/pandoc/

I wonder wether this can be done using docbook as an intermediate step.

-- 
  Paul

Re: DocBook exporter for Org-mode

[Baoqiu Cui]

Sebastian Rose <sebastian_rose@gmx.de> writes:

> docbook is great since it's widely used. 

Yes, DocBook has been adopted by many organizations in different areas
in the past years.  Once we have a good exporter for DocBook, we
basically build a bridge for exporting Org files to all other formats.

> The output looks good!
>
> How could we test it?
> And could we configure it somehow?

On how to set up a DocBook publishing environment, you can take a look
at the following page:

  http://www.sagehill.net/docbookxsl/ToolsSetup.html

I used xsltproc + FOP before, but now I use Saxon + FOP.

> Anyway, I'd prefere to export to _one_ XML format from Org-mode and
> provide xslt stylesheets to translate between different formats.

I totally agree!  We only need one XML exporter, and I think DocBook is
the way to go.

Baoqiu

> That way we all would concentrate on one XML exporter (e.g. the XHTML
> exporter) and could provide xslt stylesheets to transform the output.
>
> This would guaranty a slitely more complete and bugfree export, which is
> configured from one org-publish-project-alist.
>
> Regards,
>
>    Sebastian
>
>
>
> Dale Smith <dales@vxitech.com> writes:
>> Baoqiu Cui <cbaoqiu@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> The only thing that is missing (at least to me) in current Org-mode is
>>> the exporter for DocBook format.
>>
>> There is quite a bit of similarity between org and muse formats.  I've
>> found that I can edit .muse files in org-mode and stiil publish to
>> docbook.
>>
>>
>>> During the last week (mainly during the last weekend), I wrote some code
>>> to export Org files to DocBook V5.0 format, and everything looks very
>>> promising (I have to admit that a lot of work still needs to be done to
>>> make the code complete and stable) .
>>
>> Looks pretty good to me.  I'm ready to ty it out!
>>
>> -Dale

Re: DocBook exporter for Org-mode

[Baoqiu Cui]

Sebastian Rose <sebastian_rose@gmx.de> writes:
>
> I think we would find hundreds of xslt stylesheets on the web to
> transform Docbook to virtually any format.

Yes, this is the power and beauty of DocBook.

> Will we loose the features of htmlize.el?
> I'm not familiar with the Docbook DTD - I know it includes lots of
> elements. How about time/date types, Programming types (string,
> variable, class, function....)?

I have not tried it, but it seems that syntax highlighting of source
code listing can be done.  See this page:

  http://www.sagehill.net/docbookxsl/SyntaxHighlighting.html

> Wouldn't it be easier to transform the XHTML to docbook through xslt?
> The types are not lost, since all types that emacs is aware of, are
> exported as <span class="type">...</span>.

It should be DocBook -> XHTML if we are talking about general
publishing.  DocBook has enough features, tags, and more importantly,
much more available tools.

Baoqiu

Re: Re: DocBook exporter for Org-mode

[Sebastian Rose]

Baoqiu Cui <cbaoqiu@yahoo.com> writes:
> Sebastian Rose <sebastian_rose@gmx.de> writes:
>
>> docbook is great since it's widely used. 
>
> Yes, DocBook has been adopted by many organizations in different areas
> in the past years.  Once we have a good exporter for DocBook, we
> basically build a bridge for exporting Org files to all other formats.
>
>> The output looks good!
>>
>> How could we test it?
>> And could we configure it somehow?
>
> On how to set up a DocBook publishing environment, you can take a look
> at the following page:
>
>   http://www.sagehill.net/docbookxsl/ToolsSetup.html
>
> I used xsltproc + FOP before, but now I use Saxon + FOP.
>
>> Anyway, I'd prefere to export to _one_ XML format from Org-mode and
>> provide xslt stylesheets to translate between different formats.
>
> I totally agree!  We only need one XML exporter, and I think DocBook is
> the way to go.


How would I implement an individual design for a PDF?
How would I implement an individual layout for XHTML?

Are you shure, we could as easy and flexible style the output, as we can
do now?

I'm quite shure the direct LaTeX output is can't be beaten. I include
some files for LaTeX/PDF output. How would I do that?


Using docbook as the default output means to export from one interim
format to another. This is not bad, but we'll have to convince everyone,
that this is a good thing. The LaTeX and XHTML export (which, by the
way, could be transformed just as good as docbook) work and are widely
used.

Remember, that we will never have more information about the document,
than the Org-file format gives us.

While docbook might be a good technique, I'm not sure if docbook is the
way to go. I started to read about Docbook years ago, but I gave in on
that, since I encountered it in the wild. The DTD is huge and not many
will understand how to use it. XHTML and LaTeX are, what people know
already.
How would we support them in doing their daily work?


-- 
Sebastian Rose, EMMA STIL - mediendesign, Niemeyerstr.6, 30449 Hannover
Tel.:  +49 (0)511 - 36 58 472
Fax:   +49 (0)1805 - 233633 - 11044
mobil: +49 (0)173 - 83 93 417
Http:  www.emma-stil.de

Re: Re: DocBook exporter for Org-mode

[Sebastian Rose]

Baoqiu Cui <cbaoqiu@yahoo.com> writes:

> Sebastian Rose <sebastian_rose@gmx.de> writes:
>>
>> I think we would find hundreds of xslt stylesheets on the web to
>> transform Docbook to virtually any format.
>
> Yes, this is the power and beauty of DocBook.
>
>> Will we loose the features of htmlize.el?
>> I'm not familiar with the Docbook DTD - I know it includes lots of
>> elements. How about time/date types, Programming types (string,
>> variable, class, function....)?
>
> I have not tried it, but it seems that syntax highlighting of source
> code listing can be done.  See this page:
>
>   http://www.sagehill.net/docbookxsl/SyntaxHighlighting.html


Does this know about the fonts and colors I use in Emacs? htmlize.el
does. 


>> Wouldn't it be easier to transform the XHTML to docbook through xslt?
>> The types are not lost, since all types that emacs is aware of, are
>> exported as <span class="type">...</span>.
>
> It should be DocBook -> XHTML if we are talking about general
> publishing.  DocBook has enough features, tags, and more importantly,
> much more available tools.

...and needs an editor like emacs/Org-mode because there is none :-)

but
A) Most of those tools are simply XML related. XHTML is XML.
B) We have those information the *.org file format gives us. XHTML
   export can display all those.
C) Do you really want to tell a windows user to setup a complete SGML
   system, just to publish to PDF or XHTML?


It's true: Docbook is more general in sense of more non-org-users
might know Docbook, than Orgs XHTML export format.

But for sure more non-org-users will understand the XHTML, than the
Docbook.


I hihgly apreciate the support of Docbook and your effort. Yet, I think
I don't want to publish XHTML through Docbook.

Right now, I have a bunch of org-files, and I get a bunch of XHTML files
as output. Nothing else. No special setup required, no xslt stylesheets,
no FO or saxon.jar in $CLASSPATH (how many users know the contents of
his $CLASSPATH ?), xsltproc, xslt stylesheets, no waiting for a
Java-Application (I prefer C/C++ Tools), no waisted disk space, no
external dependencies.

We can't force end users to use Docbook to get XHTML. Java is _not_ part
of emacs, xsltproc is not part of emacs either (most of this is true for
LaTeX).

The XHTML export _is_ part of emacs and has _no_ external
dependencies. It's results are pages displayed in every browser, even
text browsers.

Docbook is displayed correctly in some of those browsers but only in
conjunction with a stylesheet. But not enough to publish Docbook and
your done. That's why Docbook is hardly ever met in the wild. It's badly
supported by the tools for end users and as complicated to setup, use
and transform as LaTeX (but LaTeX _is_ met in a lot in the wild).



Please don't get me wrong. I really think supporting Docbook is a big
step. I suddenly would have a cool Docbook editor on all the systems I
work on! I'm always happy to see people making such efforts as you
did. And I hope, this will bring more users to emacs/Org-mode too.




Best regards,

-- 
Sebastian Rose, EMMA STIL - mediendesign, Niemeyerstr.6, 30449 Hannover
Tel.:  +49 (0)511 - 36 58 472
Fax:   +49 (0)1805 - 233633 - 11044
mobil: +49 (0)173 - 83 93 417
Email: s.rose@emma-stil.de, sebastian_rose@gmx.de
Http:  www.emma-stil.de

Re: DocBook exporter for Org-mode

[Baoqiu Cui]

Sebastian Rose <sebastian_rose@gmx.de> writes:

>> I have not tried it, but it seems that syntax highlighting of source
>> code listing can be done.  See this page:
>>
>>   http://www.sagehill.net/docbookxsl/SyntaxHighlighting.html
>
>
> Does this know about the fonts and colors I use in Emacs? htmlize.el
> does. 

I don't think it will use the fonts and colors that you use in Emacs.
The colors seem to be configurable, though.

>>> Wouldn't it be easier to transform the XHTML to docbook through xslt?
>>> The types are not lost, since all types that emacs is aware of, are
>>> exported as <span class="type">...</span>.
>>
>> It should be DocBook -> XHTML if we are talking about general
>> publishing.  DocBook has enough features, tags, and more importantly,
>> much more available tools.
>
> ...and needs an editor like emacs/Org-mode because there is none :-)

I am just thinking that by supporting DocBook export we can turn Emacs +
Org-mode into a good DocBook editor, which should be much more powerful
than other GUI-based XML/DocBook editors.

> but
> A) Most of those tools are simply XML related. XHTML is XML.
> B) We have those information the *.org file format gives us. XHTML
>    export can display all those.
> C) Do you really want to tell a windows user to setup a complete SGML
>    system, just to publish to PDF or XHTML?

I have to *emphasize* this earlier: I am NOT suggesting that we should
replace LaTeX or XHTML exporters with a DocBook exporter.  Both LaTeX
and XHTML exporters have their good features and I don't think DocBook
can replace them.  DocBook exporter can simply be another addition to
Org-mode, and it can be used by people who need to write DocBook
documents for publishing.  (People use DocBook on both Windows and Unix,
and normally they do not have to know the internal setup of all DocBook
tools.)

> It's true: Docbook is more general in sense of more non-org-users
> might know Docbook, than Orgs XHTML export format.
>
> But for sure more non-org-users will understand the XHTML, than the
> Docbook.

Once we have the DocBook exporter, people do not have to know DocBook at
all to write DocBook documents.  All they need to know is simply text
files written in Org format. :-)  The DocBook documents they generate
from Org-mode will be guaranteed to be valid and well-formed.

> I hihgly apreciate the support of Docbook and your effort. Yet, I think
> I don't want to publish XHTML through Docbook.

Again, I am not suggesting that we replace current XHTML exporter, which
is a great tool and I can see that people already put a lot of efforts
there to make it very powerful.  DocBook is just an addition.
(Certainly people can use exported DocBook format to generate XHTML
format in some styles different from Org-mode's native XHTML export
result.)

> Right now, I have a bunch of org-files, and I get a bunch of XHTML files
> as output. Nothing else. No special setup required, no xslt stylesheets,
> no FO or saxon.jar in $CLASSPATH (how many users know the contents of
> his $CLASSPATH ?), xsltproc, xslt stylesheets, no waiting for a
> Java-Application (I prefer C/C++ Tools), no waisted disk space, no
> external dependencies.

This is understandable.  But generating DocBook documents from Emacs +
Org-mode does not require these things either!  How users use the
generated DocBook XML files for their publishing tasks (including how to
configure and tweak the final PDF format, and how to display them well
as XHTML in browser, etc.) are really up to them; such things are
outside of Emacs + Org-mode!

[To me, within an Org-mode buffer, I can use one key binding to do all
the thing I need: exporting DocBook format, creating PDF and HTML
formats from exported DocBook file, etc.  If I want, I can generate the
info file, man page, pure text format or RTF, etc. at the same time
too.]

> We can't force end users to use Docbook to get XHTML. ...

We should NOT. :-)

> ... Java is _not_ part
> of emacs, xsltproc is not part of emacs either (most of this is true for
> LaTeX).
>
> The XHTML export _is_ part of emacs and has _no_ external
> dependencies. It's results are pages displayed in every browser, even
> text browsers.

This is nice for XHTML exporter.  The results of DocBook exporter are
not supposed to be displayed directly on any browsers, just like we do
not expect any browsers to display *.tex files from LaTeX exporter.

> Docbook is displayed correctly in some of those browsers but only in
> conjunction with a stylesheet. But not enough to publish Docbook and
> your done. That's why Docbook is hardly ever met in the wild. It's badly
> supported by the tools for end users and as complicated to setup, use
> and transform as LaTeX (but LaTeX _is_ met in a lot in the wild).

Neither LaTeX nor DocBook is easy to set up.  While LaTeX is popular in
academia, not so many software companies use it to write software
documentation.

> Please don't get me wrong. I really think supporting Docbook is a big
> step. I suddenly would have a cool Docbook editor on all the systems I
> work on! I'm always happy to see people making such efforts as you
> did. And I hope, this will bring more users to emacs/Org-mode too.

This is my thought too...

Thanks a lot for all the comments!

Baoqiu

Re: DocBook exporter for Org-mode

[Dale Smith]

Sebastian Rose <sebastian_rose@gmx.de> writes:

> The LaTeX and XHTML export (which, by the
> way, could be transformed just as good as docbook) work and are widely
> used.

I'm not sure sure.  I think docbook is much more content oriented than
LaTeX and xhtml, which seem to be more presentation oriented.  To
me anyway.

-Dale

-- 
Dale P. Smith
dales@vtiinstruments.com
216-447-4059 x2018
216-447-8951 FAX

(Company mandated disclaimer follows...)

The information in this e-mail and any attachments is intended solely
for use by the recipient(s) to whom this e-mail is addressed and may
contain confidential and/or privileged information which is exempt
from disclosure.  If you are not an intended recipient, or an employee
or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this e-mail
and any attachments in error and that dissemination, distribution,
review or copying of this e-mail and its attachments is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify
the sender immediately and delete all electronic and paper copies of
this e-mail as well as any attachments.
Thank you.

http://www.vtiinstruments.com/images/vtiemaillogo.gif

Re: DocBook exporter for Org-mode

[Baoqiu Cui]

Dale Smith <dales@vxitech.com> writes:

> Sebastian Rose <sebastian_rose@gmx.de> writes:
>
>> The LaTeX and XHTML export (which, by the
>> way, could be transformed just as good as docbook) work and are widely
>> used.
>
> I'm not sure sure.  I think docbook is much more content oriented than
> LaTeX and xhtml, which seem to be more presentation oriented.  To
> me anyway.

Yes...  Once we export the content from Org files into feature-rich
DocBook XML format, people can do all kinds of things on the final
presentations.

Baoqiu

Re: DocBook exporter for Org-mode

[Gour]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 991 bytes --]

>>>>> "Sebastian" == Sebastian Rose <sebastian_rose@gmx.de> writes:

Sebastian> I highly apreciate the support of Docbook and your
Sebastian> effort. Yet, I think I don't want to publish XHTML through
Sebastian> Docbook.

+1  

I gave up on DocBook long ago. It's pain to author documents in it and
the tools are quite weak.

That why I don't like AsciiDoc as well being based on Docbook tool-chain
and therefore decided to use reST markup which is much lighter, nicely
supported and it can export to many formats (e.g. xhtml, odt, pdf..)

Therefore I'm interested about any hint how could reST be used with
org-mode?

(I'd use muse, but it's not so 'standard' as reST for non-Emacs users.)

Too bad that Pandoc does not have full parser for reST (yet) 'cause it
can convert to both LaTeX/ConTeXt for high-quality pdf output.


Sincerely,
Gour

-- 

Gour  | Zagreb, Croatia  | GPG key: C6E7162D
----------------------------------------------------------------

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 196 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 204 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: DocBook exporter for Org-mode

[Baoqiu Cui]

Gour <gour@mail.inet.hr> writes:

>>>>>> "Sebastian" == Sebastian Rose <sebastian_rose@gmx.de> writes:
>
> Sebastian> I highly apreciate the support of Docbook and your
> Sebastian> effort. Yet, I think I don't want to publish XHTML through
> Sebastian> Docbook.
>
> +1  
>
> I gave up on DocBook long ago. It's pain to author documents in it and
> the tools are quite weak.

Actually nXML mode has made editing DocBook and other XML files a fun
process.  At least less "painful" than editing LaTeX files to many
people.

It is true that many open-source tools around DocBook are still not
perfect, but they should be good enough for most of the work of most
users.  Some commercial tools exist and are better, but they are not
free.  (I have not used reST, however it does not seem to me that it has
more tools than DocBook.)

> That why I don't like AsciiDoc as well being based on Docbook tool-chain
> and therefore decided to use reST markup which is much lighter, nicely
> supported and it can export to many formats (e.g. xhtml, odt, pdf..)

I just checked reST markup specifications, and they do look powerful
(but not very lightweight).  Maybe it *is* time to have a standard to
unify all these plain-text based lightweight markup languages: Muse,
Org, reST, asciidoc, all kinds of *wiki*, doxygen styles, etc.  These
languages won't be lightweight and easy to read once they become more
powerful.  At that point, I'd prefer to go back to LaTeX or DocBook.

> Therefore I'm interested about any hint how could reST be used with
> org-mode?

That may require some code sharing/merging between rst.el and Org-mode,
I guess.  :-)

Baoqiu

Re: Re: DocBook exporter for Org-mode

[Matthew Lundin]

Hi Gour,

Gour <gour@mail.inet.hr> writes:

>>>>>> "Sebastian" == Sebastian Rose <sebastian_rose@gmx.de> writes:
>
> Sebastian> I highly apreciate the support of Docbook and your
> Sebastian> effort. Yet, I think I don't want to publish XHTML through
> Sebastian> Docbook.
>
> +1  
>
> I gave up on DocBook long ago. It's pain to author documents in it and
> the tools are quite weak.
>
> That why I don't like AsciiDoc as well being based on Docbook tool-chain
> and therefore decided to use reST markup which is much lighter, nicely
> supported and it can export to many formats (e.g. xhtml, odt, pdf..)
>
> Therefore I'm interested about any hint how could reST be used with
> org-mode?

Apart from odt output, I'd be curious to know what reST can do that
org-mode markup and export cannot. Footnotes, tables, hyperlinks,
images---I've found org-mode to be a really great authoring tool for
exporting both to xhtml, ascii, and LaTeX/pdf output. (And, of course,
using latex2rtf, it's trivial to convert the tex files org-mode produces
into files that can be edited in Open Office.)

> (I'd use muse, but it's not so 'standard' as reST for non-Emacs
> users.)

I wonder if the ascii export from org would be difficult to convert to
reST markup. Section headers and footnotes in the ascii export seem
pretty close to the corresponding markup in reST. Just a thought....

- Matt

Re: Re: DocBook exporter for Org-mode

[Sebastian Rose]

>> Sebastian> I highly apreciate the support of Docbook and your
>> Sebastian> effort. Yet, I think I don't want to publish XHTML through
>> Sebastian> Docbook.


Googling brings up quite some interesting formats supported through
DocBook. These are some of the formats I found on the first glance:

  * ODT
  * SWX
  * (somwhat limited) MSword
  * Java Help
  * Windows Help
  * Entire Websites

I just did a quick search only and I think more intensive search would
reveal many more.





-- 
Sebastian Rose, EMMA STIL - mediendesign, Niemeyerstr.6, 30449 Hannover
Tel.:  +49 (0)511 - 36 58 472
Fax:   +49 (0)1805 - 233633 - 11044
mobil: +49 (0)173 - 83 93 417
Http:  www.emma-stil.de

Re: DocBook exporter for Org-mode

[Gour]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1702 bytes --]

>>>>> "Baoqiu" == Baoqiu Cui <cbaoqiu@yahoo.com> writes:

Baoqiu> It is true that many open-source tools around DocBook are still
Baoqiu> not perfect, but they should be good enough for most of the work
Baoqiu> of most users.  Some commercial tools exist and are better, but
Baoqiu> they are not free.  (I have not used reST, however it does not
Baoqiu> seem to me that it has more tools than DocBook.)

Well, frankly speaking, I consider that XML simply sucks as authoring
format. I was playing with FOP several years ago and I'd never replace
it with TeX typesetting.

Baoqiu> I just checked reST markup specifications, and they do look
Baoqiu> powerful (but not very lightweight).  

Well, reST is, imho, (similar to markdown), much more readable than XML
with all those brackets.

Baoqiu> Maybe it *is* time to have a standard to unify all these
Baoqiu> plain-text based lightweight markup languages: Muse, Org, reST,
Baoqiu> asciidoc, all kinds of *wiki*, doxygen styles, etc. 

Maybe Creole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creole_(markup) )?

Baoqiu> These languages won't be lightweight and easy to read once they
Baoqiu> become more powerful.  At that point, I'd prefer to go back to
Baoqiu> LaTeX or DocBook.

I do not miss any feature in reST for my writing, the whole Python docs
is written with it and it is for me still much readable in 'source' form
than DocBook.

Baoqiu> That may require some code sharing/merging between rst.el and
Baoqiu> Org-mode, I guess.  :-)

Heh, I'm curious to know more about it. ;)


Sincerely,
Gour

-- 

Gour  | Zagreb, Croatia  | GPG key: C6E7162D
----------------------------------------------------------------

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 196 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 204 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: DocBook exporter for Org-mode

[Gour]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1604 bytes --]

>>>>> "Matthew" == Matthew Lundin <mdl@imapmail.org> writes:
Hi Matthew,

Matthew> Apart from odt output, I'd be curious to know what reST can do
Matthew> that org-mode markup and export cannot. Footnotes, tables,
Matthew> hyperlinks, images---I've found org-mode to be a really great
Matthew> authoring tool for exporting both to xhtml, ascii, and
Matthew> LaTeX/pdf output. (And, of course, using latex2rtf, it's
Matthew> trivial to convert the tex files org-mode produces into files
Matthew> that can be edited in Open Office.)

I like and plan to learn org-mode to extend the present use greatly, but
similar to Muse, its use is 'limited' to Emacs users while I've need to
share some docs (e.g. writing documentation for software application)
with non-Emacs users, so using more 'standardized' markup is a 'pro'
here.

Matthew> I wonder if the ascii export from org would be difficult to
Matthew> convert to reST markup. Section headers and footnotes in the
Matthew> ascii export seem pretty close to the corresponding markup in
Matthew> reST. Just a thought....

Dunno more about Asciidoc, but it would be great if Pandoc
(http://johnmacfarlane.net/pandoc/) would have full parser for reST
'cause it represents any supported markup in 'native' state before doing
conversion and it even outputs to Docbook :-)

So, my main point of using reST is more 'standard' and lightweight input
markup with the plethora of output formats.


Sincerely,
Gour

-- 

Gour  | Zagreb, Croatia  | GPG key: C6E7162D
----------------------------------------------------------------

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 196 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 204 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: DocBook exporter for Org-mode

[Gour]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 819 bytes --]

>>>>> "Sebastian" == Sebastian Rose <sebastian_rose@gmx.de> writes:

Sebastian> I just did a quick search only and I think more intensive
Sebastian> search would reveal many more.

Check Pandoc's features:

"Pandoc is a Haskell library for converting from one markup format to
another, and a command-line tool that uses this library. It can read
markdown and (subsets of) reStructuredText, HTML, and LaTeX, and it can
write markdown, reStructuredText, HTML, LaTeX, ConTeXt, PDF, RTF,
DocBook XML, OpenDocument XML, ODT, GNU Texinfo, MediaWiki markup, groff
man pages, and S5 HTML slide shows." 

In the past I also played with: http://txt2tags.sourceforge.net/


Sincerely,
Gour

-- 

Gour  | Zagreb, Croatia  | GPG key: C6E7162D
----------------------------------------------------------------

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 196 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 204 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: DocBook exporter for Org-mode

[Baoqiu Cui]

Hi Gour,

Gour <gour@mail.inet.hr> writes:

>>>>>> "Baoqiu" == Baoqiu Cui <cbaoqiu@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> Baoqiu> It is true that many open-source tools around DocBook are still
> Baoqiu> not perfect, but they should be good enough for most of the work
> Baoqiu> of most users.  Some commercial tools exist and are better, but
> Baoqiu> they are not free.  (I have not used reST, however it does not
> Baoqiu> seem to me that it has more tools than DocBook.)
>
> Well, frankly speaking, I consider that XML simply sucks as authoring
> format. I was playing with FOP several years ago and I'd never replace
> it with TeX typesetting.

I knew it must be FOP that you did not like. ;-) I had similar
experience using FOP, and I (and all other team members) had to find
workarounds when hitting problems in FOP (like formatting footnotes in
lists or tables).  Don't know if you have tried XEP from RenderX.  I
have not found any problems in XEP.

I don't think it's bad to use XML as authoring format, even though I
think TeX would still be the ultimate typesetting tool.

> Baoqiu> I just checked reST markup specifications, and they do look
> Baoqiu> powerful (but not very lightweight).  
>
> Well, reST is, imho, (similar to markdown), much more readable than XML
> with all those brackets.

Many people who don't like LaTeX can say similar things about LaTeX. ;-)
The main problem with all these lightweight markup languages is that
there is a limitation on their expressing power.  They are perfect tools
for quickly publishing blogs, wikis, simple web sites, documentation of
source code, etc., but will quickly hit their limit when they are used
for more serious publishing.

> Baoqiu> Maybe it *is* time to have a standard to unify all these
> Baoqiu> plain-text based lightweight markup languages: Muse, Org, reST,
> Baoqiu> asciidoc, all kinds of *wiki*, doxygen styles, etc. 
>
> Maybe Creole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creole_(markup) )?

Thanks for the link!  Haven't heard about it.

> Baoqiu> That may require some code sharing/merging between rst.el and
> Baoqiu> Org-mode, I guess.  :-)
>
> Heh, I'm curious to know more about it. ;)

I don't know much about rst.el, and am still new to Org-mode, so cannot
say much on this. :-)

Thanks,
Baoqiu

Re: DocBook exporter for Org-mode

[Gour]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1888 bytes --]

>>>>> "Baoqiu" == Baoqiu Cui <cbaoqiu@yahoo.com> writes:

Baoqiu> I knew it must be FOP that you did not like. ;-) I had similar
Baoqiu> experience using FOP, and I (and all other team members) had to
Baoqiu> find workarounds when hitting problems in FOP (like formatting
Baoqiu> footnotes in lists or tables).  

Not hard to guess - not many players around. ;)

Baoqiu> Don't know if you have tried XEP from RenderX.  I have not found
Baoqiu> any problems in XEP.

This is commercial app, right? 

Moreover, I do not believe it produces better output than TeX.

Baoqiu> Many people who don't like LaTeX can say similar things about
Baoqiu> LaTeX. ;-) 

Well, in the past I used LyX which is great tool for authoring-phase and
later manually tweaked LaTeX code.

Baoqiu> The main problem with all these lightweight markup languages is
Baoqiu> that there is a limitation on their expressing power.  

Have you seen http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/ref/rst/directives.html 

Baoqiu> They are perfect tools for quickly publishing blogs, wikis,
Baoqiu> simple web sites, documentation of source code, etc., but will
Baoqiu> quickly hit their limit when they are used for more serious
Baoqiu> publishing.

Frankly speaking, reST provides a lot of expressive power if you want
it, while still keeping document very readable and no DTDs, schemas,
validation, fiddling with catalogs etc. :-D

Otoh, number of tags in DocBook is overwhelming and, imgo, way too
distracting for most documentation tasks, at least, for *my* use-cases.

Baoqiu> I don't know much about rst.el, and am still new to Org-mode, so
Baoqiu> cannot say much on this. :-)

OK. Maybe someone with more Elisp skills will hook on reST. :-D

Sincerely,
Gour

-- 

Gour  | Zagreb, Croatia  | GPG key: C6E7162D
----------------------------------------------------------------

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 196 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 204 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: Re: DocBook exporter for Org-mode

[Sebastian Rose]

Gour <gour@mail.inet.hr> writes:
> Otoh, number of tags in DocBook is overwhelming and, imgo, way too
> distracting for most documentation tasks, at least, for *my* use-cases.


It is, and that's exactly why the DocBook export is such a great thing. 

You could say a similar thing about (valid) XHTML, LaTeX, reST -
whatever markup you're not familiar with.

With the DocBook exporter, learning DocBook is reduced to pressing `C-c
C-e' and choose the right option ;-)



Regards,

-- 
Sebastian Rose, EMMA STIL - mediendesign, Niemeyerstr.6, 30449 Hannover
Tel.:  +49 (0)511 - 36 58 472
Fax:   +49 (0)1805 - 233633 - 11044
mobil: +49 (0)173 - 83 93 417
Http:  www.emma-stil.de

Re: Re: DocBook exporter for Org-mode

[Sebastian Rose]

Gour <gour@mail.inet.hr> writes:
> Frankly speaking, reST provides a lot of expressive power if you want
> it, while still keeping document very readable and no DTDs, schemas,
> validation, fiddling with catalogs etc. :-D


How about:

Frankly speaking, Org-mode provides a lot of expressive power if you
want it while still keeping document very readable and nowadays can
produce DocBook output simply by pressing `C-c C-e D' ;-)



Regards,

-- 
Sebastian Rose, EMMA STIL - mediendesign, Niemeyerstr.6, 30449 Hannover
Tel.:  +49 (0)511 - 36 58 472
Fax:   +49 (0)1805 - 233633 - 11044
mobil: +49 (0)173 - 83 93 417
Http:  www.emma-stil.de

Re: DocBook exporter for Org-mode

[Dale Smith]

Sebastian Rose <sebastian_rose@gmx.de> writes:

> Gour <gour@mail.inet.hr> writes:
>> Otoh, number of tags in DocBook is overwhelming and, imgo, way too
>> distracting for most documentation tasks, at least, for *my* use-cases.
>
>
> It is, and that's exactly why the DocBook export is such a great thing. 
>
> You could say a similar thing about (valid) XHTML, LaTeX, reST -
> whatever markup you're not familiar with.
>
> With the DocBook exporter, learning DocBook is reduced to pressing `C-c
> C-e' and choose the right option ;-)

And that's one of the reasons I would like a docbook exporter.

I see myself with two usage patterns.  One is where I keep the file in
org (or muse) format, and export to docbook and eventually pdf for
external consumption.  The other is where I use org (or muse) to
"start" the docbook file, and then continue to edit the docbook.  This
is because docbook is so much richer than any wiki format, and I want
to take advantage of what's there.

-Dale

-- 
Dale P. Smith
dales@vtiinstruments.com
216-447-4059 x2018
216-447-8951 FAX

(Company mandated disclaimer follows...)

The information in this e-mail and any attachments is intended solely
for use by the recipient(s) to whom this e-mail is addressed and may
contain confidential and/or privileged information which is exempt
from disclosure.  If you are not an intended recipient, or an employee
or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this e-mail
and any attachments in error and that dissemination, distribution,
review or copying of this e-mail and its attachments is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify
the sender immediately and delete all electronic and paper copies of
this e-mail as well as any attachments.
Thank you.

http://www.vtiinstruments.com/images/vtiemaillogo.gif

Re: DocBook exporter for Org-mode

[Baoqiu Cui]

Gour <gour@mail.inet.hr> writes:

>>>>>> "Baoqiu" == Baoqiu Cui <cbaoqiu@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> Baoqiu> I knew it must be FOP that you did not like. ;-) I had similar
> Baoqiu> experience using FOP, and I (and all other team members) had to
> Baoqiu> find workarounds when hitting problems in FOP (like formatting
> Baoqiu> footnotes in lists or tables).  
>
> Not hard to guess - not many players around. ;)
>
> Baoqiu> Don't know if you have tried XEP from RenderX.  I have not found
> Baoqiu> any problems in XEP.
>
> This is commercial app, right? 

Yes, it is.  I do like its PDF output quality.

> Moreover, I do not believe it produces better output than TeX.

You won't see real difference if we are talking about software manuals
or documentation etc.

> Frankly speaking, reST provides a lot of expressive power if you want
> it, while still keeping document very readable and no DTDs, schemas,
> validation, fiddling with catalogs etc. :-D
>
> Otoh, number of tags in DocBook is overwhelming and, imgo, way too
> distracting for most documentation tasks, at least, for *my* use-cases.

Maybe you should take a look at Simplified DocBook:

  http://www.docbook.org/schemas/simplified

- Baoqiu

Re: DocBook exporter for Org-mode

[Baoqiu Cui]

Dale Smith <dales@vxitech.com> writes:

> Sebastian Rose <sebastian_rose@gmx.de> writes:
>
>> Gour <gour@mail.inet.hr> writes:
>>> Otoh, number of tags in DocBook is overwhelming and, imgo, way too
>>> distracting for most documentation tasks, at least, for *my* use-cases.
>>
>>
>> It is, and that's exactly why the DocBook export is such a great thing. 
>>
>> You could say a similar thing about (valid) XHTML, LaTeX, reST -
>> whatever markup you're not familiar with.
>>
>> With the DocBook exporter, learning DocBook is reduced to pressing `C-c
>> C-e' and choose the right option ;-)
>
> And that's one of the reasons I would like a docbook exporter.
>
> I see myself with two usage patterns.  One is where I keep the file in
> org (or muse) format, and export to docbook and eventually pdf for
> external consumption.  The other is where I use org (or muse) to
> "start" the docbook file, and then continue to edit the docbook.  This
> is because docbook is so much richer than any wiki format, and I want
> to take advantage of what's there.

With the DocBook exporter, I can imagine another usage pattern: we can
use the powerful list, section, and table editing functionality, quickly
edit some paragraphs or sections, export them into DocBook format, and
then include them into other big DocBook files.

Baoqiu

Re: DocBook exporter for Org-mode

[Baoqiu Cui]

Baoqiu Cui <cbaoqiu@yahoo.com> writes:

> Dale Smith <dales@vxitech.com> writes:
>
>> Baoqiu Cui <cbaoqiu@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> The only thing that is missing (at least to me) in current Org-mode is
>>> the exporter for DocBook format.
>>
>> There is quite a bit of similarity between org and muse formats.  I've
>> found that I can edit .muse files in org-mode and stiil publish to
>> docbook.
>
> Yes, Muse and Org-mode do have some similarity.  While Muse is mainly
> for publishing, Org-mode focuses on many other things beyond some good
> publishing functionality.  Since Org-mode already has a very good
> publishing framework in its HTML exporter , it is relatively easy (a
> small step) to make Org-mode a strong publishing environment too.
>
> I have not used Muse in the past 2+ years.  Don't know whether it has
> got much improvement...  It's a nice trick to edit .muse files in
> Org-mode. :-)
>
>>> During the last week (mainly during the last weekend), I wrote some code
>>> to export Org files to DocBook V5.0 format, and everything looks very
>>> promising (I have to admit that a lot of work still needs to be done to
>>> make the code complete and stable) .
>>
>> Looks pretty good to me.  I'm ready to ty it out!
>
> Thanks.  I'll work on the code a little bit more during the weekend and
> post it to the group.

Link to the code:

  http://code.google.com/p/bcui-emacs/source/browse/#svn/trunk/org-docbook

Baoqiu

Re: DocBook exporter for Org-mode

[Gour]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 661 bytes --]

>>>>> "Baoqiu" == Baoqiu Cui <cbaoqiu@yahoo.com> writes:

Baoqiu> You won't see real difference if we are talking about software
Baoqiu> manuals or documentation etc.

For software manuals reST/Sphinx provides all what I need - check some
of the docs here: http://sphinx.pocoo.org/examples.html

Baoqiu> Maybe you should take a look at Simplified DocBook:

I played with it in the past, but simply do not see any advantage of
using any Docbook-dialect over reST, but understand it makes sense for
others.


Sincerely,
Gour

-- 

Gour  | Zagreb, Croatia  | GPG key: C6E7162D
----------------------------------------------------------------

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 196 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 204 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: DocBook exporter for Org-mode

[Gour]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 635 bytes --]

>>>>> "Sebastian" == Sebastian Rose <sebastian_rose@gmx.de> writes:

Sebastian> Frankly speaking, Org-mode provides a lot of expressive power
Sebastian> if you want it while still keeping document very readable and
Sebastian> nowadays can produce DocBook output simply by pressing `C-c
Sebastian> C-e D' ;-)

I agree about Org-mode's expressive power.

The case for reST is because it's more 'standard' markup for non-Emacs
users. Otherwise, I could continue using Muse as well...


Sincerely,
Gour

-- 

Gour  | Zagreb, Croatia  | GPG key: C6E7162D
----------------------------------------------------------------

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 196 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 204 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode