From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Norman Walsh To: Eric Lee Green Cc: "Eric S. Raymond" , docbook-tools-discuss@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: I'm trying to set up docbook-tools... Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:36:00 -0000 Message-id: <873dlnjklb.fsf@nwalsh.com> References: <200007041511.LAA15779@snark.thyrsus.com> <00070410352500.07357@ehome.inhouse> X-SW-Source: 2000/msg00221.html / Eric Lee Green was heard to say: | That puzzles me too. Even Norm Walsh's so-called "Docbook" book | reads as if it were a briefly written summary written in a foreign | language to be as terse as possible. I'm sorry you found it to be that way. That wasn't the intent. Although the bulk of the book is intended as a reference and not a how-to, the introductory chapters were supposed to be readable by the novice. Can you explain, in any more detail, what you found most troubling? | It's bad enough that the authors of every book and document that exists on SGML | have invented their own inscrutable terminology for the process of marking up | documentation... but none of them, zero, zilch, appears to have considered the | notion of a GLOSSARY, and the very thought of explaining complex terms in a | simple, clear manner appears to break every single SGML author out in hives. | Yes, it's difficult. I've done it before, I know how difficult it is. But it's | as if the creators of SGML DTD's and tools have a death wish... or else they're | trying to protect their cult's purity by keeping out the riff-raff (same | thing). It is an unfortunate fact that Goldfarb created a set of concise, technical terms for describing the various components of SGML markup. On the one hand, using these terms precisely tends to be awkward for novices. On the other, using other terms causes confusion among other audiences. I really tried to be clear in this regard. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh | Everything is temporary. http://nwalsh.com/ | From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Norman Walsh To: Eric Lee Green Cc: "Eric S. Raymond" , docbook-tools-discuss@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: I'm trying to set up docbook-tools... Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 09:21:00 -0000 Message-ID: <873dlnjklb.fsf@nwalsh.com> References: <200007041511.LAA15779@snark.thyrsus.com> <00070410352500.07357@ehome.inhouse> X-SW-Source: 2000-q3/msg00019.html Message-ID: <20000706092100.7OsaCjM2QKYibFhHw2jb3Wa40lutnxFpduE50b8FhpI@z> / Eric Lee Green was heard to say: | That puzzles me too. Even Norm Walsh's so-called "Docbook" book | reads as if it were a briefly written summary written in a foreign | language to be as terse as possible. I'm sorry you found it to be that way. That wasn't the intent. Although the bulk of the book is intended as a reference and not a how-to, the introductory chapters were supposed to be readable by the novice. Can you explain, in any more detail, what you found most troubling? | It's bad enough that the authors of every book and document that exists on SGML | have invented their own inscrutable terminology for the process of marking up | documentation... but none of them, zero, zilch, appears to have considered the | notion of a GLOSSARY, and the very thought of explaining complex terms in a | simple, clear manner appears to break every single SGML author out in hives. | Yes, it's difficult. I've done it before, I know how difficult it is. But it's | as if the creators of SGML DTD's and tools have a death wish... or else they're | trying to protect their cult's purity by keeping out the riff-raff (same | thing). It is an unfortunate fact that Goldfarb created a set of concise, technical terms for describing the various components of SGML markup. On the one hand, using these terms precisely tends to be awkward for novices. On the other, using other terms causes confusion among other audiences. I really tried to be clear in this regard. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh | Everything is temporary. http://nwalsh.com/ |