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,
Matěj Cepl
