Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 12:30:47 +0200 (MET DST) From: grog@lemis.de (Greg Lehey) To: chuckr@Glue.umd.edu (Chuck Robey) Cc: doc@FreeBSD.org (FreeBSD Documenters) Subject: Re: How do I write this SGML stuff? Message-ID: <199606081030.MAA00631@allegro.lemis.de> In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.3.91.960605174948.32250B-100000@skipper.eng.umd.edu> from "Chuck Robey" at Jun 5, 96 05:51:21 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Chuck Robey writes: > > On Wed, 5 Jun 1996, Ollivier Robert wrote: > >> It seems that Chuck Robey said: >>> that trivially in either troff or LaTeX, but I can't find any in the >>> handbook, and there's no explanation anywhere I can find. I could even >>> turn on underlining, only one kind of emphasis. The idea of having to go >>> thru thousands of lines looking for one example, it makes it too hard to >> >> To be honest, if you know LaTeX, you know the Linuxdoc DTD. Instead of \em, >> you just use <em/.../ or <em>...</em>.That was part of this reason I >> recommended using the Linuxdoc and started using it for the FAQ two years >> ago. >> >> At the time, there was no real tool to generate text, HTML, LaTeX from a a >> common source document. The Linuxdoc is far from perfect but at the time it >> seemed one of the best solution... :-) > > It's doing the mapping from a dtd to a document that has me confused. > I'm learning LaTeX, but not making much headway with sgml. Maybe I have > to go out and buy Yet Another Book. Are we wed to LaTeX? I find it a very turgid formatter. I tried years ago, and came to the conclusion that I'd rather use plain TeX. When I wrote my book for O'Reilly, they wanted me to write it in troff, and I wanted to write it in TeX. In the end, I gave in, and to my surprise I found troff a *whole* lot better than TeX or derivatives. I'm not trying to convert people, but I do think we should have a choice. Greg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606081030.MAA00631>