This is part of The Pile, a partial archive of some open source mailing lists and newsgroups.
From: kmself@ix.netcom.com Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 14:54:55 -0800 To: Silicon Valley Users Group <svlug@svlug.org> Subject: Re: [svlug] Documentation markup preferences and reasons --2JFBq9zoW8cOFH7v Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable on Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 10:43:09AM -0800, Stephen R. Savitzky (steve@theSta= rport.org) wrote: > Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> writes: >=20 > > >> I'm wary of tools influenced by people who can't distinguish between > > >> document markup and page layout. >=20 > > So, there is much about the DocBook informational sites that suggests > > that the brain-dead WYSIWYG mindset described runs rampant, there. I'd > > have to go back and re-read them to cite specific examples, but I got a > > dull ache in the back of my head just browsing them. > >=20 > > And TeX definitely has none of that conceptual blindness about it. None > > at all. >=20 > You appear to have this almost precisely backwards. DocBook, from what > I've seen of it, seems to be almost entirely semantic. It's likely that > the _descriptions_ of DocBook have been written for WYSIWYG users, but > the actual rendering of DocBook tags is done through the SGML stylesheet > engine DSSSL, so how particular tags end up looking is entirely under > the control of the stylesheet writer.=20 I've been carrying on this thread in a number of quarters, and this is largely the conclusion I'm coming too. Also looking at several LaTeX references -- much stronger bent on presentation than DocBook. Comment from an academic who publishes largely in LaTeX, documents are strongly tied to the fixed format (e.g.: US letter, A4, etc.) they were initially designed for, particularly if they have complex layouts. === To: Silicon Valley Users Group <svlug@svlug.org> Subject: Re: [svlug] Documentation markup preferences and reasons From: steve@theStarport.org (Stephen R. Savitzky) Date: 01 Jan 2001 07:25:49 -0800 Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> writes: > begin Stephen R. Savitzky quotation: > > > You appear to have this almost precisely backwards. > > Again, I was speaking almost exclusively of the impression I got from > browsing the DocBook informational Web sites, about the mindsets of > those who put information up on those sites. I thought I was quite > specific about that -- and about the fact that I've not yet sat down and > learned either system. Um; yes, I misread the post slightly. And though I'm slightly familiar with DocBook and *very* familiar with TeX, LaTeX and XML, I've stayed almost completely away from the web sites. > But I thank you for your comments, which are very useful, no matter how > unrelated to my prior posts. You're welcome. Both LaTeX and DocBook share the original SGML/HTML vision of semantic markup -- it's possible to get pixel-level control over presentation while paying no attention to it whatever at the time the document is created. All of the presentation details are in the style definitions. Since this is an alien concept to the poing-and-drool set, there's probably a substantial amount of "KDE syndrome" out there: "see, you still have control, you just have to do it a little differently..." which completely hides the underlying reality that you don't have to give a damn about presentation in either system if you don't want to. ===