Re: DOCBOOK: DocBook Editor?

[Fabian Mandelbaum <fabman at mandrakesoft dot com>]

El mié, 01-05-2002 a las 01:40, Matt G. escribió:
> >         I agree with you. But we need an XML word processor for
> >editing DocBook documents; some call them "Document editor"s and
> >that's what we really need.
> 
> Wait, who's "we"?  The DocBook community, in general?
> 

Yep. Why not? The problem of choosing the "right tool for the job" is a
different one of not always having the right tool for the job. I mean,
why not use an XML word processor for rapid document prototyping (or
complete "simple"-documents writting if you want to...) and when you
need/want more in-depth editing, then you are free to fire up your
preferred TEXT editor and work on it.

 
> But, I doubt anyone is going to write a tool that gets it right.  If they 
> do, how likely do you think it is that there won't be at least a few 
> substantial usability issues (such as international support, rendering 
> quality, vi command-mode support, etc.)?

Look at XXE :-) It has some issues... but it can improve, can't it?

> On top of it all, when users are faced with a presentational view of their 
> content, they're more likely to write in a presentational fashion, as 
> opposed to a structural/semantic one.
> 

These users still can benefit from having the DocBook there ready for
when they want to use (or learn and use ;)) a text editor to change the
way they write. And why not offer both views? (plain XML text and styled
XML text)

> edit raw XML.  Also, I guess using DocBook as an open interchange format, 
> instead of a proprietary one (i.e. MS Word), or a weaker one (i.e HTML), 
> isn't an awful idea.  So, maybe even a sub-optimal DocBook editor has a 
> place in the world, though I worry about people trying to use it when it's 
> really not the right tool for the job.
> 

Yes, yes, yes! ;-) I'd like to get rid of proprietary formats and HTML
is not "rich" enough sometimes for data interchange.... but I keep
facing people who use MS Word "just because everybody else does",
"because it allows me to see what I'm editing as it will appear
printed", "because I don't want to mess up with tags" and things on
those lines.

As I've said when I've started writting this mail: The choice of the
"right tool for the job" is a completely different issue, but you have
to have tools to chose from, right?

Regards
 
-- 
Fabian Mandelbaum
Computer Systems Consultant - MandrakeSoft DOC Team

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Esta parte del mensaje esta firmada digitalmente