Re: Emacs documentation.

[David Kastrup]

Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:

> Hi again, Dave!
>
>>Go ask around the OSS world what's being used for documentation.
>
> Why?

Because you'll find that any XML-based process would be rather unusual
(at least ouside of the Java world).  Man-pages, hand-written HTML,
plain text files, Texinfo, LaTeX and other stuff are more prevalent.

> The fact that vast numbers of people use or have used Microsoft
> Windows or XML or Cobol or Emacs or VHS videotape or Trabant cars or
> variable length character encodings or Docbook or Fortran has no
> bearing on whether these things are any good, or what they are good
> for.

The long dampeners on Trabant were actually a good complement to the
lousy road quality in the GDR.  Imported cars suffered from a higher
probability of breakdowns because they were less well suited to the
potholes there.

> I'm not sure you've thought this issue through.  Popularity doesn't
> imply quality.  XML-based thingies and Microsoft Word (*.doc) are
> both widely used formats, yet at least half of them are bad formats.
> As a Docbook enthusiast, you should be able to counter my posts by
> arguing the intrinsic merits of Docbook/XML, and why it would be
> superior to Texinfo in the Emacs project.  I haven't seen you doing
> this.

Well, he did personally inform me that he put me in his killfile when
I made a list of detailed problems and tried to elicit comments.  So
that is one way of addressing such points.

>>>  I suspect most Docbook writers actually use special purpose
>>> editors to create their source code, rather than Emacs or vi.
>
>>Emacs has done for me for the last ten years.
>
> Do most Docbook writers use special purpose editors or don't they?

To be fair: people using Emacs _are_ generally using a special purpose
editor (in the form of a good major mode).  Even LaTeX is not
uncommonly written with special purpose editors and modes.

So if you want to get more relevant numbers, you probably should ask
on some vi user group, as that sort of editor can't be tailored as
well to the task.  How many of those would write Texinfo and LaTeX
with their favorite general purpose editor, but revert to special
systems for XML writing?

I suppose still some, but have no hard numbers.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum