[NTLUG:Discuss] good "book" format for html?

[Bryan J. Smith]

On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 10:33, Val Harris wrote:
> How about gzipped tar files?  Konqueror can read them just fine.

Why not SXW (OpenOffice XML Writer) then?
It's ZIP'd XML files.

And, as I mentioned before, OpenOffice XML Writer converts to/from a lot
of other standard markup -- including LaTeX.

Kevin Brannen wrote:  
> BTW, I'm really not searching for docbook and the other formats that 
> would require me to convert the HTML into something else.  I like HTML
> because of it's simplicity and univerality.

I'm kinda scratching my head on what the problem is, what the objectives
are and why the interest in HTML.  HTML is such a poor XML standard
format for books.  It offers virtually no structure and capability for
books.

SGML, DocBook SGML/XML, OpenOffice XML Writer and others are far
better.  They have very strict formatting.  And they convert very well
to/from many other formats.  They are largely eternal.

HTML is not.  It not lacks standardization other than basic headers, but
it really wasn't designed for publication at all.

-- 
Bryan J. Smith                                    b.j.smith at ieee.org 
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Subtotal Cost of Ownership (SCO) for Windows being less than Linux
Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) assumes experts for the former, costly
retraining for the latter, omitted "software assurance" costs in 
compatible desktop OS/apps for the former, no free/legacy reuse for
latter, and no basic security, patch or downtime comparison at all.