Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2007-01-03 18:30 +0100: > The other side is that it is much easier to convert DocBook > to troff directly.
True. And people familiar with LaTex and ConTeXt find it much easier to convert DocBook to those formats directly. It makes great sense if DocBook is the only XML vocabulary the community wants to be able to generate print/PDF output. It starts to look a lot less appealing as more XML vocabularies enter the picture. > It is mainly a question of effort to implement the various > elements and attributes, and can principally be done with not > much more than XSLT and an appropriate troff macro set. That's basically what Beno??t Guillon has done with dblatex: http://dblatex.sourceforge.net/ Except that he's convering to LaTeX/ConTeXt. I'm not saying I think the "direct from DocBook to an existing print backend" is absolutely a bad approac (I actually have the build of the DocBook Project XSLT stylesheets set up to use dblatex to generatethe PDF version of the release notes). I would personally love to see a direct DocBook-to-troff converter. But I'm a DocBook user. If I were a TEI user, I'd probably be a lot less keen on the idea of somebody putting time into making a print processor that only works for DocBook. --Mike _______________________________________________ Groff mailing list Groff@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff
