This is the mail archive of the
docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
mailing list for the DocBook project.
RE: One Word User's Suggestions to DocBook under NT (was RE: Dockbook under NT)
- To: <docbook at lists dot oasis-open dot org>
- Subject: RE: One Word User's Suggestions to DocBook under NT (was RE: DOCBOOK: Dockbook under NT)
- From: "Gershon Leib Joseph" <gershon at mainsoft dot com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 10:37:46 +0200
- Reply-To: docbook at lists dot oasis-open dot org
/ Jeff Duska wrote:
|
| My concern was more for my client. I get the hang of Emacs, Xmacs or
| something, when I get my Linux develop box up and running. I was
| looking at
| for a solution to my current client documentation needs. DocBook would
| exceed anything that they do, but process was tedious for me... I would
| expect a full-fledge revolt -- include being burned at the stake --, if I
| suggested for this development team.
|
| As for alternatives, I wasn't looking for an alternative to Linux. I was
| looking for an alternative to this current process. I understand that the
| processional tools are quite nice and can allow people like myself to work
| in the SGML/XML code and users to work in a visual mode for print or the
| web. Unfortunately, this is just not within the current budget.
|
| I just want to give others a heads up, if they were expect something like
| Word or Frontpage.
\
Jeff,
I suggest you take a look at WordPerfect9. It has built-in SGML and XML
support. I personally was rather disappointed with it, but then I've been
spoilt using Arbortext's Adept and Epic tools. I use ntSGML at home as well
as the Linux version of those tools.
I have set up DocBook based documentation systems using WordPerfect 9 for
authoring, and a combination of Jade and Omnimark for publishing. The Word
users took to the tools without any problems after a 1/2-day training
session. If your client's budget can stretch a bit, they should use Epic or
Adept. No other payware comes close.
Gershon.