Thomas Anderson wrote:
> I personally have had no problems reading and/or understanding PMS, and
> I've had to reference a fair bit of it. I'd like to hear exactly who has
> problems with what sections and how to fix that. 
> 
> As Fabian said it really isn't a matter of "We like XML better than LaTeX!" It's not those people's
> perogative. The people who wrote PMS should be able to make the decision
> for themselves(as they will be maintaining it) as to what language to
> use. If they use LaTeX, more power to them, it's what enables them to do
> their job in the easiest way. You don't *have* to read PMS in LaTeX,
> which by the way makes my eyes bleed somewhat, you can read it in a very
> well done PDF.

For those that don't know me, I'm a member of the Documentation Team. I 
also have some background with XSLT (not as huge as neysx, our leader, 
has, but still I'm not really a begginer in this area).

That said, I completely agree with the choice of latex in this 
particular case. If there was a fixed request on GudeXML, this document 
would not have been at all written yet.

Cheers,
-jkt

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth