Re: [Plplot-devel] api.xml patch + DocBook building rant

[Joao C. <jc...@fe...>]

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
> why?

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?

Slavery.
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 
intellectual presumption.

I think this is more a philosophical than a technical discussion. If I were a 
bit older I would be a hippy :)

Joao