From: David Bergman (davidb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-31 11:17:12
I think one other concern with XML variants, beside the sometimes
unnecessary end tag, is the typographical edginess of "<" and ">". This
might sound whimsical, but I believe the negative attitude towards XML
w.r.t readaility and writability is enforced by "<" sticking out,
typographically separating the document into chunks, while the smoother
"\" does not have that edgy affect.
It is important, although debate about this would include whimsical
psychological arguments, that the flow is not disturbed too much, which
happens with XML and, to a lesser extent, with SGML.
The page-breaker problem of LaTeX is a nuisance, though.
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Aleksey Gurtovoy
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 2:44 AM
To: 'Boost mailing list'
Subject: RE: [boost] Reference documentation: one approach
David Abrahams wrote:
> I have found that simple things are handled really well in LaTeX, but
> for example if you need to control where pages get broken, you may be
> in for a special kind of hell. Aleksey and I had a miserable
> experience with LaTeX when we were writing the MPL paper.
Yep. That was one of the reasons I've moved it to (SGML) DocBook - which
is actually much less verbose than usually believed (for one, you don't
have to close the tags using their names - e.g. this one is perfectly OK
in SGML: <quote>cultural momentum</>).
Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk