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

[Derek Neighbors]

> 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.

I disagree.  If you want things PUBLISHED, get a good publisher.  They
wont care what format you give it to them in, because they feel they
know layout better than an author anyhow. :)

I.E. An author shouldnt be worried about typesetting, they should be
worried about writing.  In fact, even docbook to a degree worries too
much about what to do instead of letting the author write.

Which is why in the end OpenOffice formats will probably be the norm. 
They let the writers write and not fuss with learning some 'formatting'
techniques. :)

-Derek

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part