DocBook

Sean picasso@madflower.com
Wed, 21 Feb 2001 00:51:57 -0500 (EST)


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 to nitpick, but that is _precisely_ OLE. The only downside is your way
doesnt pull up the proper editer for the embedded object. Even EPS
files may contain font information or fonts themseves, other files
(embedded or linked), colour information, etc. 

Im not saying that 90% of my documents are not in fact directories, with
bits and pieces from this or that, because most of them are. 

Personally, if I was going to go through that much work to create a
document, I would probably write it with vi in the PDF language. 
But instead I sit here working with a directory full of files wrestling
with an eps file that has a file embedded by linking that uses a font I
don't have.