| 1 |
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 11:49:35 +0200 |
| 2 |
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:50:11 +0200 |
| 6 |
> > Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> >>> So how, specifically, is PMS "wrongly written", and why hasn't |
| 8 |
> >>> anyone who thinks so bothered to provide details? |
| 9 |
> >> - rewrite it as an rfc using a markup among xmlrfc, docbook, |
| 10 |
> >> guidexml. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > What technical reason is there to use a markup that's more work for |
| 13 |
> > those of us doing the writing? Writing XML is a huge pain in the ass |
| 14 |
> > compared to latex. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> More people can understand those markups |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I've yet to see anyone have any difficulties with Tex. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> they are consistent with the gentoo documentation |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
GuideXML can't even begin to cover our requirements. Simple example: |
| 23 |
try to rewrite the following in GuideXML: |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
---START--- |
| 26 |
Global variables must only contain invariant values |
| 27 |
(see~\ref{metadata-invariance}). If a global variable's value is |
| 28 |
invariant, it may have the value that would be generated at any given |
| 29 |
point in the build sequence. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
This is demonstrated by code listing~\ref{lst:env-saving}. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
\lstinputlisting[float,caption=Environment state between |
| 34 |
functions,label=lst:env-saving]{env-saving.listing} |
| 35 |
---END--- |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> they look better on screen than on paper |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
That's highly questionable. And PMS is sufficiently long that printing |
| 40 |
it out is the easiest way of reading it, no matter what format it's in. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
> tex is a great typesetting markup to write academic books. Right tool |
| 43 |
> for the right task. It address the problem "PMS is anything but |
| 44 |
> accessible" |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
How does making PMS twice the file size and five times as complicated to |
| 47 |
edit make it more accessible? |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
> >> - use EBNF when describing a syntax. |
| 50 |
> > |
| 51 |
> > Is there any indication that this is any clearer? EBNF gets messy |
| 52 |
> > when it comes to describing the whitespace rules, for example. |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> It is less ambiguous than natural language. That solves the issue |
| 55 |
> "The syntax is underspecified" |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
In what places is the syntax currently underspecified, and in said |
| 58 |
places, why is EBNF a better solution that tightening up the existing |
| 59 |
language? Please illustrate your answer with real examples. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
-- |
| 62 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives