David Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I've looked briefly at some docbook source, and it looked (to my > untrained eye) uglier than latex source, and harder to input. But > that's probably just because I am unfamiliar with it.
Not entirely. Docbook (or any SGML DTD, really) is more verbose and less flexible on input than LaTeX, so it could be more annoying to input. This is its strength and weakness... the flexibility and eccentric syntax which makes (La)TeX so convenient to enter makes it more difficult to translate. There are tools to help edit both, so it's often a matter of personal choice which one prefers. I prefer LaTeX these days, as the Emacs support is more advanced, but one of these days I'll switch to SGML, certainly. Some things one might consider in deciding are the needs one has. For example, LaTeX has bibliographic support, and more mature maths, including editor support for both. > latex2html gives reasonably good (but a tad ugly) output. For non-commercial use, there's also tth <http://hutchinson.belmont.ma.us/tth/>. OTOH, I'm fairly sure that you can get RTF out of DocBook more easily than LaTeX, and you can easily get HTML. -- Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - In a variety of flavors! Immanuel doesn't pun, he Kant.
