Re: Antwort: Re: DAVENPORT: Three more Questions.

[Konrad Hinsen <hinsen@cnrs-orleans.fr>]

> DocBook is written modularly precisely so it can be modified.
> IF YOU BADLY NEED <EXAMPLEFONT> OR SOMETHING, IT CAN BE ADDED
> VERY EASILY WITHOUT AFFECTING ANYTHING ELSE.

That's in fact what I am trying at the moment to add support for
classes, starting from DocBook XML. I'll post the results later, but
my first impression is that some modifications are simple, whereas
others require a lot of work. For example, suppose I want to define a
new element that allows the same contents as <sect2>, there seems to
be no other way to define this than to list all possible elements
explicitly, since the convenient entity definitions in the DocBook DTD
are not available in the internal subset.

> Don't use DSSSL. Convert using Omnimark direct to LaTeX instead :-) 
> _Much_ easier.

I am trying SGMLSP at the moment, and it's a big step up from
Jade/DSSSL, although I find myself faced with the syntactic atrocities
of Perl again :-(

> > It might then seem a better choice
> > to stay away from DocBook completely.
> 
> If presentation is the only consideration then DocBook is the wrong
> tool to use. Word would be more suitable.

What I'd like is a compromise between structure-only and
presentation-only!
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Konrad Hinsen                            | E-Mail: hinsen@cnrs-orleans.fr
Centre de Biophysique Moleculaire (CNRS) | Tel.: +33-2.38.25.55.69
Rue Charles Sadron                       | Fax:  +33-2.38.63.15.17
45071 Orleans Cedex 2                    | Deutsch/Esperanto/English/
France                                   | Nederlands/Francais
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------