• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Re: XML and a text editor, barefoot in the winter, uphill both ways [...]
• From: Dave Pawson <dpawson@n...>
• Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:08:41 +0000
• In-reply-to: <r02000200-1028-5BE69DC219E011D897B20003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]>
• References: <3FBA2489.8020405@l...><r02000200-1028-5BE69DC219E011D897B20003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]>

At 16:00 18/11/2003, Simon St.Laurent wrote:


>We do accept a subset of DocBook, but it also depends on the author's
>preference (of course), the editor's preference (some folks aren't fond
>of XML), and the series (Missing Manuals and Hacks so far are Word
>only.)

O'Reilly were quite happy to take my docbook input.
The "O'Reilly" version was minimally different.



>I suspect that if there were a WYSIWYG DocBook editor with revision
>marks, my co-workers would be happier about XML.

I had hopes of Word-2003 for that Simon.
For some inexplicable reason, any word styling I apply to
a block of text tagged with b or similar, isn't uniformally
applied to other b tagged content.
   I guess MS haven't got XML yet?
Styling based on tagging was my hope, for admin people without
any exposure to XML.
   Its a start, but 3/10 MS.

>I'd guess that slightly under half the books I've edited were submitted
>in XML.  Sadly, all of the books I've written are in Word.

<grin/> Tut tut Simon.

regards DaveP

• References:
  • Re: XML and a text editor, barefoot in the winter, uphill both ways[...]
    • From: Stephan Wiesner <swiesner@l...>
  • Re: Re: XML and a text editor, barefoot in the winter, uphill both ways [...]
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Word 2003 schemas available
• Next by Date: RE: Word 2003 schemas available
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: XML and a text editor, barefoot in the winter, uphill both ways [...]
• Next by thread: Re: Word 2003 schemas available
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread