[NTLUG:Discuss] Re: good "book" format for html? -- DocBook is more simple, more universal

[Bryan J. Smith]

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 just gotta revisit this.  I'm not trying to be critical, but DocBook
is even _simpler_ than HTML.  You focus on the structure, not the
combined structure/format like HTML.  And it's cake to piece together.

That's why it's the most ideal for distributed documentation.

Format is then done with the application of stylesheets to DocBook. 
Stylesheets generate various "publication" output like HTML, PDF, RTF,
etc...  So it is not only easier to write, but easily "published" into
another form with *1* command.

This is major reason why the Linux Documentation Project (LDP) uses
DocBook as its standard.  And why people write parsers for such
documentation maintenance in DocBook XML, instead of HTML.

Think of HTML like you do Postscript/PDF.  It's an end-user
_publication_ format.  It's too "free-form" and "unstructured" for
maintaining documentation in.  Just like it is very _difficult_ to
convert Postscript/PDF back to an "editable" form, the same is true for
HTML.

Now one might argue the existence CSS in favor of HTML.  But CSS
compared to DocBook stylesheets are like apples-to-oranges.  HTML can
optionally use CSS.  In fact, CSS is largely a post-hack to apply more
control over HTML formatting outside of it files itself.  DocBook
basically requires Stylesheets for publication -- Stylesheets the
_publisher_ controls.  With HTML, your individual authors can interject
way too much formatting control.  DocBook's strict separation of content
and format are what make it:
  "simplicity and universality"  

For articles and books.  Remember, DocBook was designed specifically as
a lightweight SGML standard, which has a full OASIS-standardized XML
implementation.  In fact, I convert DocBook XML to/from LaTeX (LyX) all
the time.  I also convert to/from OpenOffice XML Writer as well now.

You can't universally convert from HTML to anything else, at least not
with any consistency.

-- Bryan

P.S.  If you're still really not interested in DocBook XML, then I'd
really look at OpenOffice XML Writer.  You _can_ crank out it's XML
quite easily too.  And then apply style in other XML meta-data and
package it all in a _single_ ZIP file (that's was SX- files are ;-).

There is a pretty big reason why Boeing was the major end-user sponsor
of the OASIS standardization of OpenOffice XML by Sun.  Boeing is
probably the world's leading for-profit producer of technical
documentation, and really sets the standard.

But DocBook sounds like the most ideal.  If you want simplicity and
universality, DocBook is the best of both worlds.  Especially if you are
going to write parsers for it.


-- 
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.