[Bf-docboard] Re: Let's start again...

[Craig Sanders]

DocBook is a good protocol - however as I'm sure you have noticed, there is
distinct lack of tools for using it. Most authors working with DocBook are
still hacking it directly using either vi or emacs. Works, but slow, slow,
and then slow, plus limited formatting capability.

So we have two choices: First, stay with emacs and hope for tools to come to
our doorstep (not likely in the very near future) or convert now to a more
"user-friendly" such as the DTP tools normally used in professional writing.

I am assuming that our primary distribution path is online via the net,
which suggests HTML as the media of choice. However, we have also published
in PDF and we have a printed manual - even if it is down-rev (they always
are). There is apparently also interest in utilizing XML as the primary
media.

XML is growing in acceptance but isn't yet on the table for most users
HTML is a valid media and readily prepared but has limited formatting
capabilities.
PDF is both widely accepted and readily accessed by the user community (the
reader is free and browser plugins are available). It also affords almost
unlimited formatting capabilities and - this is key - is readily printed.

While much ado has been made about online doc sets, the fact remains that
most readers are most at home with a tangible (read "book") information
source when the material is complex and involved.

Hence, my recommendation is to bite the bullet now and make the conversion
to a tool that is available on all three major platforms (UNIX, Windows and
Mac), can accept raw data from HTML, Word and many other major word
processors, can output in print (postscript if necessary), PDF and online
(HTML and PDF) formats, and is capable of working with very long documents.
Namely, FrameMaker.

What's the price?

The biggest one is that your final writing and production is likely to be in
the hands of a professional writer (a flaky bunch at best, and I know
because I am one). Raw material can still be prepared (and will continue to
be so for a long time) by others in the organization and will have to be
converted each time we rev the doc set. Also, Frame is anything but open
source; and not cheap, either. However, most pro writers who have been
around for a while have a copy. It's just too common a tool in my world not
to have it.

The next best candidate would be, of course, MicroSloth Word. It can do all
of the above, but does not provide the same formatting capabilities nor is
it good at managing large documents (tends to die gracelessly and without
warning).

I'm willing to work with what we have, but I do suggest we think carefully
and now about how we want to address docs in the future.

Craig

-----Original Message-----
From: bf-docboard-admin@blender.org
[mailto:bf-docboard-admin@blender.org]On Behalf Of Stefano Selleri
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 10:37 PM
To: bf-docboard@blender.org
Subject: Re: [Bf-docboard] Re: Let's start again...


Hi,


> What writing tools do you use? I can contribute in this area - FrameMaker,
> Word, InDesign, Illustrator, Photoshop, Acrobat, plus have expert skill
with
> WebWorks Publisher for conversions.

This is the real key issue.

Up to now EMACS was used, and this is not exactly user friendly.

I'm evaluating XMLmind but it has some drowbacks (one being not
open source)

But we are opened to suggestion.

THe key point i that all the material is DocBook XML and we would prefear to
stick to this standard.

Stefano

_______________________________________________
Bf-docboard mailing list
Bf-docboard@blender.org
http://www.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard