ant-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Weiqi Gao <weiqi...@networkusa.net>
Subject Re: Printable ant 1.3 manual anywhere?
Date Tue, 06 Mar 2001 13:39:23 GMT
Chris Todd wrote:
> 
> I have not worked with DocBook before, so I can't say much about it.  I just
> glanced at the online manual at docbook.org, however, and it looks pretty
> complex.  I have to admit that one of the factors guiding me in converting
> the HTML docs to XML is to simplify things for the documentors.  In my
> cursory glance at DocBook, I am not sure it fits the bill in this regard,
> though I certainly could be wrong (feel free to set me straight if I am!

I strongly argue against this opinion.  In the past, people stayed away
from DocBook for many reasons, but the most cited one is that DocBook
required too many deverse pieces of software, stylesheets, directory
structures, and knowledge that it takes a PhD to figure everything out
and start to concentrate on the task at hand.

Nowadays with RPMs of all you need to start using DocBook available from
a central place (e.g., Red Hat Linux 6.2 distribution), writing DocBook
documents just as easy as:

=================================
[weiqi@gao] 1 $ cat > mydoc.sgml
<!DOCTYPE ....>
...
<chapter title="Introduction">
<para>
This is the introduction.
</para>
</chapter>
^D
[weiqi@gao] 2 $ db2pdf mydoc.sgml
=================================

Granted there are hundreds of elements in the DocBook DTD, but the
project can choose a subset and stick to it.

Let me illustrate my point by altering just a few words in your passage:

==========altered
quote=======================================================
> I have not worked with <Java> before, so I can't say much about it.  I just
> glanced at the online manual at <java.sun.com>, however, and it looks pretty
> complex.  I have to admit that one of the factors guiding me in converting
> the <COBOL apps> to <OO> is to simplify things for the <programmers>.
 In my
> cursory glance at <Java>, I am not sure it fits the bill in this regard,
> though I certainly could be wrong (feel free to set me straight if I am!)
==========altered
quote=======================================================

==========altered
quote=======================================================
> I have not worked with <Linux> before, so I can't say much about it.  I just
> glanced at the online manual at <linux.com>, however, and it looks pretty
> complex.  I have to admit that one of the factors guiding me in converting
> the <CP/M machines> to <Modern ones> is to simplify things for the <Users>.
 In my
> cursory glance at <Linux>, I am not sure it fits the bill in this regard,
> though I certainly could be wrong (feel free to set me straight if I am!)
==========altered
quote=======================================================

==========altered
quote=======================================================
> I have not worked with <Make> before, so I can't say much about it.  I just
> glanced at the online manual at <gnu.org>, however, and it looks pretty
> complex.  I have to admit that one of the factors guiding me in converting
> the <shell scripts> to <build scripts> is to simplify things for the <builders>.
 In my
> cursory glance at <Make>, I am not sure it fits the bill in this regard,
> though I certainly could be wrong (feel free to set me straight if I am!)
==========altered
quote=======================================================

[Suddenly realizing I can't win here,] Oh, Well...

--
Weiqi Gao
weiqigao@networkusa.net

Mime
View raw message