Re: Doc Tasks (was RE: docstrings in Guile!)

[Valentin Kamyshenko <val at kamysh dot materials dot kiev dot ua>]

>>>>> "Greg" == Greg J Badros <gjb@cs.washington.edu> writes:

Greg> But if we can convert to TeXInfo from DocBook (and rumour has it
Greg> that the tools are there, though I've not had time to try them
Greg> yet), then these problems go away and we're able to just use the
Greg> strictly richer SGML markup.
Is not it the contradiction?
If the SGML markup is richer that TeXInfo, than it will be impossible
to convert .sgml to .texi without loosing the quality of the output,
is not it?

As for me, I consider the whole ideology of .sgml as a step in a wrong 
direction (of course, this is my subjective opinion). If I want to
have a good-looking document, I'd use the whole power of TeX, and
would not limit myself to undefined subset of tags, that are present
in SGML. If I want to have .html, I'll just write .html (although, as
for me, it is much less convenient for reading documentation, that
.info). If I want to have good-commented source, I use CWEB, or
fweb. And so on.

So, the question is: what would we like to have as the output, when
using .sgml? I have an impression, that, actually, we are speaking
implicitely about the generation of .html document and/or .texi, or
getting it printed (as the .tex file, again?). Why not to use
texi2html for these purposes, if somebody likes it?

--
Best regards,
	Valentin.