Re: Where, what and how - The future of DocBook

[Peter Toft <pto@sslug.dk>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2337 bytes --]

On 4 Dec 2000, Norman Walsh wrote:

> | Fine - which tools are available for writing
> | SGML/DocBook on Linux+xBSD or Windows?
>
> The future is XML, not SGML.

Agree. Can we get MANY people to use the tools?
How do we get the tools working?
- Which tools should the ordinary person download?
- How are they installed?
- Where is the first "lets try it" - example
- Where is the tutorials?
- Where is the full documentation?
- Can we get standard Linux/*BSD distributions
  to carry the tools?

These the the *KEY* questions to answer in the best
possible way. I am sorry to say that I find it hard to
find it.

>
> | - Emacs and alike tools?
>
> Naturally.

;-)))

>
> | - Any WYSIWYG editors?
>
> That said, for Windows there are lots of XML editing tools coming
> online. For production environments, I would recommend Arbortext's
> Epic (disclaimer: I used to work for them). SoftQuad's XMetaL is less
> expensive.
>
> | - Any *fast* syntax verification system
>
> James Clark's SP.

URL - again, download?, install?, howto? + full docs.

>
> | - and what is being made in general
>
> What is being made of what in general?

Who is making what at the moment for DocBook?

>
> | Many companies don't accept DocBook - why?
>
> Many companies do. Bug ones. With lots of documentation: Sun, HP,
> Novell, etc. Who doesn't accept it (and why do you care that they
> don't?)

Eg. IMT-2000 standardization (UMTS) - check
http://www.3gpp.org -> all the work is Word-files.

I care a lot. I find that Word is eating WAY to much of
the areas, where DocBook could have been cool. I think
Word is preferred for many companies today - many do
not consider DocBook - that is a shame - we can all
agree on that!




>
> | Can't we do better???
>
> I'm sure we can.

We have to IMHO!

>
> | What is the future for SGML/DocBook versus XML/DocBook
> | - again also regarding tools, the work efford going on
> | at the moment etc.
>
> XML is the future. But since XML is SGML, there's no loss here. You
> can continue to use your favorite SGML tools. But I don't expect any
> more SGML tools to be written. Ever.

Ok ;-))

-- 
Peter Toft, Ph.D. [pto@sslug.dk] http://www.sslug.dk/~pto

"You don't win a battle by asking, `Will we win?'
You win it by doing your best to win" - Richard M Stallman

LinuxKonference i København: http://LinuxForum.dk/