[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Future of jadetex (Was: First Open Source Documentation Summit at the O'Reilly Open Source Convention
- To: Sebastian Rahtz <>
- Subject: Future of jadetex (Was: First Open Source Documentation Summit at the O'Reilly Open Source Convention
- From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 10:25:32 +0200
- cc: Camille Bégnis <>, docbook-apps <>, LDP <>, docbook-tools list <>
In-reply-to: <Pine.OSF.firstname.lastname@example.org> (Sebastian Rahtz <email@example.com>'s message of Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:45:23 BST)
- Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 04:25:15 -0400 (EDT)
- Resent-Message-ID: <C6LHqB.A.oFH.Yerd5@murphy>
On Wednesday 19 July 2000, at 15 h 45, the keyboard of Sebastian Rahtz
> i really cannot see why you want to stick with SGML and DSSSL. why not put
> the effort into XSL FO?
Because there is a free "free as in free speech, not free as in free beer"
tool for DSSSL, which works on all Unices? And XSL implementations need a
non-free Java virtual machine or are too new/buggy? If you have documentation
to write *today*, DSSSL is the solution.
Also, if you don't write your stylesheets yourself, which is the most common
case for DocBook, DSSSL stylesheets are better debugged, better documented,
more robust, etc.
> a) it perpetuates the writing of "style" in LaTeX
Which does it and does it well, while DSSSL failed to produce something.
> c) it makes the whole DSSSL stage fairly redundant
You can write the DocBook2LaTeX in Perl or Python, it's not a problem for me.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com