Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

XML, SGML, XSLT, DSSSL, Oh my! 4 Comments More | Login | Reply /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.

  • I agree (Score:2)

    by Matts (1087) on 2002.01.15 14:29 (#3189) Journal
    To an extent I agree. The docbook processing tools are crappola. Really they are bad. But I can't really agree with the XSLT tools. Simply stick a <?xml-stylesheet?> directive in the top of your file, and either deliver it via AxKit, or view it in mozilla or IE, and it'll be beautifully rendered for you.

    As far as XSLFO goes, the people I know who write books with it use PassiveTeX, not FOP, because FOP's output still sucks (i.e. doesn't use TeX formatting rules). However PassiveTeX is even harder to install, and you're still left in a maze of DTD's, catalogs, and TeX installation buglets. Gah!

    I (strangely) have high hopes of these things getting better, particularly this year in the Perl arena where we've made some pretty massive advances in processing XML. I hope I'm not proved wrong.

    Oh, and hfb - drop the trolling. XML is a good thing, and is here to stay. There's no equivalent of docbook out there in the "TeX" world. TeX is a publishing markup language, and docbook is a technical publication markup language. They are different things, period.

    • I wasn't trolling actually...

    • TeX is a publishing markup language, and docbook is a technical publication markup language.

      The point is ASCII is easy to author in (at least I think so). Book printers need PS or PDF to print. Here, the source code (TeX or XML) is a convenience to the authors. The real world needs the information in a format usable by their tools. TeX isn't at all a general replacement for XML, but in the realm of publishing, it's often a better fit than docbook.

      Let me be plain: I want XML and docbook to succeed. I do

      • DocBook's biggest problem is over-complexity IMHO. I think most people would be better served with s-docbook (simple-docbook).

        But yes, we agree.
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.