DocBook

[Edward Glowacki]

On 21 Feb 2001, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Edward Glowacki <glowack2@msu.edu> writes:
> 
> [...about DocBook...]
> 
> > The downside appears to be the complexity of running stuff to
> > process your docs.  I think you would definately want to have a
> > Makefile or some handy scripts to do your document processing,
> > because you have no chance whatsoever of remembering all the
> > proper syntax for all the commands involved. [...]
> 
> You don't do this for *all* your documents?  To me, a "document"
> under Unix is a directory with a Makefile in it.  Object Linking
> and Embedding?  ActiveX?  Bah!  Just put in a copy of that .eps
> and add a \includegraphics or @image command or <IMG> tag or
> whatever.

=)  Not everyone is like you Ben... ;)

Actually, when I started working with Latex, I ended up doing a
makefile that did all the work for me.  It even had help to help
me remember what commands it could do, so if you did "make help"
you'd get a nice list of the stuff in the makefile. =)  The problem
is, now I have this really cool (granted, it could be, um, written
better?) Makefile, but no *content* for it to make... ;)

As for "all my documents", most of it is plain text, the rest is
HTML... =P  Hence my desire to move to something better... Especially
since "lpr something.txt" looks like %@^!#$ when it comes out of
the printer.  I just need to find a happy, zen-ish sort of format
to put all my docs in. =)  Hence DocBook, hence I need to write some
more kick-ass makefiles to do all my dirty work for me... :)

-- 
Edward Glowacki				glowack2@msu.edu
GLLUG President				http://www.gllug.org
Imagination is the one weapon in the war against reality.
                -- Jules de Gaultier