On Saturday, 22 October 2005 at 16:44:12 -0500, Alejandro Lpez-Valencia wrote: > On 10/22/05, Zvezdan Petkovic wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 03:47:19PM -0400, Larry Kollar wrote: >>> I use structured FrameMaker at work to write documentation, and one of >>> the easier ways I've found to get text into it is to paste it into >>> Vim then pipe lines through scripts that wrap blocks of text in tags >>> (lists, sections, and so forth). I then import that into Frame. It >>> works very well, although the technique is probably specific to the >>> writer and the work involved. >> >> That's also a nice example of how painful is writing in XML. >> You use a totally different tool (Vim) to help another tool that's >> supposedly made to help you with XML (FrameMaker). > > XML was never intended as an input language for human use but as a > *human readable* machine-level data representation. On the other > hand, troff, TeX and the macro packages built upon them are > low/middle level languages that a human is expected to write and > understand.
Correct. But which is the better approach? If I need to look at the XML at all, it's not fulfilling its purpose of being a machine-level representation. Nobody has yet convinced me that this additional level is worth the trouble, though I'm prepared to listen to arguments (and often ask for them). Greg -- Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP public key See complete headers for address and phone numbers _______________________________________________ Groff mailing list Groff@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff
