| 1 |
Thomas Anderson wrote: |
| 2 |
> I personally have had no problems reading and/or understanding PMS, and |
| 3 |
> I've had to reference a fair bit of it. I'd like to hear exactly who has |
| 4 |
> problems with what sections and how to fix that. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> As Fabian said it really isn't a matter of "We like XML better than LaTeX!" It's not those people's |
| 7 |
> perogative. The people who wrote PMS should be able to make the decision |
| 8 |
> for themselves(as they will be maintaining it) as to what language to |
| 9 |
> use. If they use LaTeX, more power to them, it's what enables them to do |
| 10 |
> their job in the easiest way. You don't *have* to read PMS in LaTeX, |
| 11 |
> which by the way makes my eyes bleed somewhat, you can read it in a very |
| 12 |
> well done PDF. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
For those that don't know me, I'm a member of the Documentation Team. I |
| 15 |
also have some background with XSLT (not as huge as neysx, our leader, |
| 16 |
has, but still I'm not really a begginer in this area). |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
That said, I completely agree with the choice of latex in this |
| 19 |
particular case. If there was a fixed request on GudeXML, this document |
| 20 |
would not have been at all written yet. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Cheers, |
| 23 |
-jkt |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth |
Archives