[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[OT], archaicity, Re: Texinfo (was Re: Documentation File Formats)

From: Georg Lehner
Subject: [OT], archaicity, Re: Texinfo (was Re: Documentation File Formats)
Date: 04 Sep 2002 13:00:21 -0600


Not that I want to start a texinfo proposal here, but...

El jue, 29-08-2002 a las 22:59, Derek Neighbors escribió:
> > I humbly suggest Texinfo, the GNU documentation file format. You can 
> > read a well-written tutorial by running `info texinfo' or `C-h i g 
> > (texinfo)' in Emacs, or 
> > <>.
> Texinfo is more archaic than docbook, if we go to 'command' based

There is a conceptual difference.  While docbook allows you to structure
book layouts, Texinfo allows you to structure _tecnical documentation_.

You do not write "5 pts", put rather "5 @unit{pts}", by which you tell
the "typesetter" to set the text up for a Unit, which on plain text is a
space, but typeset on paper can be semibold or other font, or whatever.

I still think, that *anybody* writing tecnical documents should read the
texinfo manual, its very good at describing how to do this, with or
without texinfo.

just my 2c,


> documents we should just use docbook.  Again we accept documents in any
> format. :)
> -Derek
> _______________________________________________
> Gnue mailing list
> address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]