[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: The year is 2027, and we need to examine archived XML documentsfrom
On 2007-09-10, 14:15 GMT, Jonathan Robie wrote: > For Word Processing documents, what was wrong with Docbook? That it is heavily targeted towards computer-related texts. I am just in the process of transcribing Haggadah (if you don't know what exactly it looks like, think about something like theatre drama with a liturgical twist). As a newbie in Docbook (and just coming from wonderful presentation of Norm Walsh on XMLPrague), I have thought about Docbook first. After just first page, I had to give up -- there is just not a good way how to transcribe Haggadah in Docbook, unless you either - dumb down your transcription to HTML-level, or - you make some really awfull internal misuse of tags (something on the level of "<classname> actually means what I would like to write as <speach>"), which defeats the purpose of XML in the first place, or - you effectively develop some special schema as Docbook extension, which defeats the idea of standardized schema. I switched to much more complicated TEI and I am pretty happy with it, but I begun to have doubts about that book on the Islamic Architecture written in Docbook (http://norman.walsh.name/2003/10/09/dei). How much Docbook was in its Docbook? Best, MatÄj Cepl
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|