| 1 |
On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 01:00:52PM +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 09-06-2008 11:49:35 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:50:11 +0200 |
| 5 |
> >> Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> >>>> So how, specifically, is PMS "wrongly written", and why hasn't |
| 7 |
> >>>> anyone who thinks so bothered to provide details? |
| 8 |
> >>> - rewrite it as an rfc using a markup among xmlrfc, docbook, guidexml. |
| 9 |
> >> |
| 10 |
> >> What technical reason is there to use a markup that's more work for |
| 11 |
> >> those of us doing the writing? Writing XML is a huge pain in the ass |
| 12 |
> >> compared to latex. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > More people can understand those markups, they are consistent with the |
| 15 |
> > gentoo documentation, they look better on screen than on paper, tex is a |
| 16 |
> > great typesetting markup to write academic books. Right tool for the |
| 17 |
> > right task. It address the problem "PMS is anything but accessible" |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> I think this is a bit of a pointless discussion. If people insist on |
| 20 |
> reading the source and are scared of LaTeX, then the same can happen for |
| 21 |
> any other language. PMS is available as pdf (or can easily being made |
| 22 |
> by typing `make`), which is readable IMO, and one could always try how |
| 23 |
> far one gets with a LaTeX->XML translator and XSLT transformations |
| 24 |
> afterwards. Still, what is the point of requiring language X over Y? I |
| 25 |
> for one prefer LaTeX over any of the formats you mentioned before, but |
| 26 |
> that should not be of any value here. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
++ |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I personally have had no problems reading and/or understanding PMS, and |
| 31 |
I've had to reference a fair bit of it. I'd like to hear exactly who has |
| 32 |
problems with what sections and how to fix that. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
As Fabian said it really isn't a matter of "We like XML better than LaTeX!" It's not those people's |
| 35 |
perogative. The people who wrote PMS should be able to make the decision |
| 36 |
for themselves(as they will be maintaining it) as to what language to |
| 37 |
use. If they use LaTeX, more power to them, it's what enables them to do |
| 38 |
their job in the easiest way. You don't *have* to read PMS in LaTeX, |
| 39 |
which by the way makes my eyes bleed somewhat, you can read it in a very |
| 40 |
well done PDF. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Regards, |
| 43 |
Thomas |
Archives