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

[Clark McGrew <mcgrew at ale dot physics dot sunysb dot edu>]

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

    Valentin Kamyshenko <val@kamysh.materials.kiev.ua> writes:

    Greg> But if we can convert to TeXInfo from DocBook (and rumour
    Greg> has it that the tools are there, though I've not had time to
    Greg> try them yet), then these problems go away and we're able to
    Greg> just use the 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?

    Greg> It's not a contradiction: we do end up losing quality of the
    Greg> output, but only while we feel that the TeXInfo tools serve
    Greg> our needs better.

The problem is that SGML is not richer than TeXInfo which has the full
power of TeX behind it.  DocBook predefines a hundreds of tags in an
effort get around these problems, I think it's an excellent example of
SGML's limitations.  All of those same tags can be trivially defined
inside of TeXInfo.

    Greg> Think of it in terms of audio mastering: you want an all
    Greg> digital perfect initial recording, even if ultimately you'll
    Greg> distribute an analog cassette or an 56kbps mp3.

Are you arguing for or against TeXInfo?

    Greg> But the point of Docbook markup is to permit getting any of
    Greg> those formats from a single source by enriching that source
    Greg> substantial.

In that case, we should probably be using CWEB which is far more
expressive that DocBook.  With CWEB there really isn't a distinction
between source and documentation.  Personally I find it distracting
but some people like it.

Cheers,

Clark