From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Toft To: Norman Walsh Cc: Subject: Re: Where, what and how - The future of DocBook Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 14:12:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <87ofyse10q.fsf@nwalsh.com> X-SW-Source: 2000-q4/msg00052.html Message-ID: <20001205141200.ovw_281tUJ6UPxel0Y_3aWtp36E_0g4zrU8SrZD4J0Q@z> 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/