From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Galen Boyer Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Off-topic: Plain text, XML or LaTex? Date: 24 Jun 2003 22:37:19 -0500 Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+gnu-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <81u1ahq8ur.fsf@kwikemart.springfield.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1056512662 2597 80.91.224.249 (25 Jun 2003 03:44:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 03:44:22 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+gnu-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 25 05:44:13 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19V1BR-0000dF-00 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 05:42:57 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19V19e-0000HO-UE for gnu-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 23:41:06 -0400 Original-Path: shelby.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!router1.news.adelphia.net!rip!c03.atl99!news.webusenet.com!newscene!novia!novia!sequencer.newscene.com!not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help Original-Lines: 18 Original-Sender: galenboyer@hotpop.com User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Original-Xref: shelby.stanford.edu gnu.emacs.help:114706 Original-To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+gnu-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:11197 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.help:11197 On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, jeff.rancier@softechnics.com wrote: > the power of using docbook is the fact that you have your > source written once in XML, then the theory is you can generate > various output formats (with possibe intermediate > translations), from the same source. I.e., HTML, FO, PDF, etc. Plus, the sales factor to your fellow compadres and upper management includes the letters, XML. My company is on the verge of moving to docbook as its publication format (based solely on my publications with it) and the fact that it has XML in its description has the sexiness needed. I could have never sold some version of TEX, no matter how much better it might have been. Either way, one source for the documentation is the key, and tagged documentation is the way to go. -- Galen Boyer