mscharkow at gmx.net
Wed Apr 13 21:50:50 CEST 2005
Kasper Skårhøj wrote:
> On DocBook:
> - The format is NO option if authors cannot author it with a graphical
> tool like OO; It is more important that writing documentation is easy to
> do that semantically correct. However, can both be obtained it is fine
> with me.
Okay, I did not recognize this priority as such, and as other people
wrote: Given WYSIWYG as a condition, docbook fails because of no free
> - IMAGES: If Docbook cannot easily support the inclusion of images it is
> no option either. In Open Office it is a copy/paste thing, it must be as
> easy as that. It might be acceptable that a file is written to disc
> first and then selected.
It's a matter of taste to _refer_ to an image in the same directory and
zip the dir afterwards, or zip it directly as OO does.
> This is the original reason for Open Office Writer as format: That
> authoring was SO easy and everything inside the SAME file (not multiple
> files lying around). Drawbacks is no CVS and less semantic control. But
> don't underestimate these factors in your enthusiasm!
I seem to have indeed underestimated the value of GUI creating with
docs, because from a technical perspective, structural markup is the way
to go. Of course, we can cope with OO files now with rlofficelib and
stuff, but it's quite a lot of work with no standard tools to help us.
More information about the TYPO3-team-typo3org