This is the mail archive of the
guile@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: Doc Tasks (was RE: docstrings in Guile!)
>>>>> "Greg" == Greg J Badros <gjb@cs.washington.edu> writes:
Valentin Kamyshenko <val@kamysh.materials.kiev.ua> writes:
Greg> But if we can convert to TeXInfo from DocBook (and rumour
Greg> has it that the tools are there, though I've not had time to
Greg> try them yet), then these problems go away and we're able to
Greg> just use the strictly richer SGML markup.
>> Is not it the contradiction? If the SGML markup is richer that
>> TeXInfo, than it will be impossible to convert .sgml to .texi
>> without loosing the quality of the output, is not it?
Greg> It's not a contradiction: we do end up losing quality of the
Greg> output, but only while we feel that the TeXInfo tools serve
Greg> our needs better.
The problem is that SGML is not richer than TeXInfo which has the full
power of TeX behind it. DocBook predefines a hundreds of tags in an
effort get around these problems, I think it's an excellent example of
SGML's limitations. All of those same tags can be trivially defined
inside of TeXInfo.
Greg> Think of it in terms of audio mastering: you want an all
Greg> digital perfect initial recording, even if ultimately you'll
Greg> distribute an analog cassette or an 56kbps mp3.
Are you arguing for or against TeXInfo?
Greg> But the point of Docbook markup is to permit getting any of
Greg> those formats from a single source by enriching that source
Greg> substantial.
In that case, we should probably be using CWEB which is far more
expressive that DocBook. With CWEB there really isn't a distinction
between source and documentation. Personally I find it distracting
but some people like it.
Cheers,
Clark