[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: <OK> Re: [Groff] Re: Simplifying groff documentation
From: |
M Bianchi |
Subject: |
Re: <OK> Re: [Groff] Re: Simplifying groff documentation |
Date: |
Sun, 24 Dec 2006 11:30:36 -0500 |
On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 10:26:43PM -0500, Larry Kollar wrote:
> :
> The problem with using XML for documentation is that it was
> designed specifically for machine processing -- and *people*
> write documents for *other* people.
I agree and think this is _very_ important. groff -mm and -ms attempt to do
this, but mixing macros that associate _meaning_ with text with macros that
associate _presentation_ with text quickly gets confusing. LaTeX has the same
problem to my eye.
> The human element has been
> tripping up XML doctypes, one after another, for quite a while
> now. One can mandate DocBook here, or DITA there, but if you
> have to *mandate* you've already failed. Success means an
> *embrace* -- and HTML is about the only doctype that has ever
> been widely embraced rather than endured.
HTML may have been "embraced" but I don't think because it helped people
communicate with people. The lack of implimented standards across browsers
emphasizes how desparate people were to get their words on the web.
> :
> Another possibility is that groff itself can do the conversion.
> The HTML "driver" has a ways to go yet before being able to
> produce beautiful HTML, but what comes out now is close enough
> to clean up using some awk scripts and HTML Tidy. So it might
> be easier, short- and long-term, to encourage people to add the
> -mwww macros to their man pages.
I think this is unlikely to work because _meaning_ and _presentation_ markups
look alike.
I want to write documents with only _meaning_ markup (and as little of that as
possible) and have the appearance come from a standardized assignment of
_presentation_ to _meaning_. I want to avoid "tweeking" appearance altogether
since I firmly believe "our way is better than my way (for all `our ways' I
agree with)". I'm working hard on at accumulating lots of `our ways' I agree
with by learning to agree more readily.
--
Mike Bianchi
- Re: [Groff] Re: Simplifying groff documentation, Larry Kollar, 2006/12/23
- [Groff] Re: Simplifying groff documentation, Gunnar Ritter, 2006/12/25
- [Groff] Re: Simplifying groff documentation, Eric S. Raymond, 2006/12/25
- Re: [Groff] Re: Simplifying groff documentation, Gunnar Ritter, 2006/12/25
- Re: [Groff] Re: Simplifying groff documentation, Eric S. Raymond, 2006/12/25
- Re: [Groff] Re: Simplifying groff documentation, Gunnar Ritter, 2006/12/26
- Re: [Groff] Re: Simplifying groff documentation, Eric S. Raymond, 2006/12/26
- Re: [Groff] Re: Simplifying groff documentation, Gunnar Ritter, 2006/12/26
- Re: [Groff] Re: Simplifying groff documentation, Eric S. Raymond, 2006/12/26
- Re: [Groff] Re: Simplifying groff documentation, Gunnar Ritter, 2006/12/26
- Re: [Groff] Re: Simplifying groff documentation, Eric S. Raymond, 2006/12/26