On Saturday 08 March 2003 08:48, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> Could one of you make me a favor and apply the patch below to api.xml?
> Past night I had problems with my production workstation and I cannot
> easily connect to the cvs server @ SF. Also, I am unable to check my
> e-mail now (I am following plplot-devel at the Web interface, though).
> This patch fixes some typos and xml syntactical problems that have been
> introduced recently. Hopefully, the building of the Octave documentation
> will work now for everybody.
> I am just realizing that when Octave bindings building is enable, we must
> check in configure.ac for the presence of some of the Perl modules. This
> is done currently only for the DocBook documentation.
> Also, this last problem with api.xml makes me think that it is very
> important that all developers could at least check for validity of the xml
> code they cvs commit. For instance, one of the typos my patch below fixes
> is a stupid '</setc1>' that should be '</sect1>'.
> Joao, I understand that you dislike DocBook, but could you please clarify
Because it's too verbose. Markup languages like latex are still managables,
HTML is in the limit, XML it too much. I just don't understand what I wrote,
specially when I'm reviewing my own writing.
Perhaps that's OK for writing book chapters, or even manual sections, but I
think that it is completely innadequate for the API section of our manual.
I have the same feelings about the HTML page structure of our web site.
Thinks could be better if *visual* editors would be available. That's why I
use lyx most of the time, instead of plain latex; and mozilla visual HTML
editor, when I can.
And our docbook setup is too complex. If I *work* in a field that requires a
complex setup, that's OK. But if I'm just a *user* of something, I want an
express setup, otherwise I will try something else.
> When you say that you are not going to "serve" this technology, what
> do you mean exactly?
Machines are done to do services for mens, not the other way around. When I
fell that I have to adapt myself in order to use a technology, then the
technology was not done with attention to men's limitations. Or should I say,
the tecnology was not devised for mens to use it, but only because of
I think this is more a philosophical than a technical discussion. If I were a
bit older I would be a hippy :)