Re: DOCBOOK: Technical DTDs vs. non-technical

["David C. Mason" <dcm at redhat dot com>]

Alvaro Siman <alsiman@sppe.com> writes:

> DocBook was "primarily written for books about computer software and
> hardware". "Because its main structures correspond to the general
> notion of what constitutes a "book,", it is assumed that it
> automatically addresses the needs of Literature in general.
> 
> However, this may not be true about 'humanistic' subject matter.
> Assuming that "literature" covers the whole spectrum of the written
> word, therefore it automatically covers any of its subsets is not
> exactly correct.  If that were so, there wouldn't be a specific need
> for MathML, or LegalML, or any other of the XML specializations.

I would have to agree here. I think in some ways, it breaks the spirit
of SGML/XML to use DocBook outside the scope of computer related
documentation. I do not know of a DTD that specifically meets the needs
of what you are asking for - nor do I think this is the forum. Perhaps
the comp.text.sgml newsgroup would be better.

Dave