Re: Is LyX usable ?

[Mark Gray <markgray iago nac net>]

Karl Eichwalder <ke@suse.de> writes:
> Mark Gray <markgray@iago.nac.net> writes:
>> Preben Randhol <randhol@pvv.org> writes:

>>> Only problem is that one use more time structuring the document than
>>> actually thinking about the text itself.

> Just write and enter the tags later (maybe, somebody will do it for
> you); as a start this is enough:
> 
>     <sect1>
>     <title>...</title>
>     <para>
>     ...
>     ...
>     ...
>     </para>
>     <programlisting>
>     ...
>     </programlisting>
>     <para>
>     ...
>     </para>
>     </sect1>

>> Also, there is a big problem in that the results are not easily
>> searchable -- all the documentation created becomes more of a
>> hindrance than a help when you end up having to grep the html output
>> in order to figure out how to do something.

> If you really want to grep the HTML files, just use "nochunks" to create
> one big file.  Otherwise you should use proper XML tools to search the
> SGML/XML file directly (who knows more on this issue?).

A good tool to do this would certainly take away any objections to
DocBook I have -- the Gnome Help Browser does not even have a search
function built in.  (SGML/XML is exciting, but until I see Free tools
that take advantage of that theoretical potential I am going to remain
sceptical -- it looks like a lot of extra work just to produce html.)

>>> That depends a lot. SGML requires quite a lot of work when it comes to
>>> maintaining a dynamical document.

> Please, define "dynamical" in this context.

>>> Also if you need to document
>>> scientific applications DocBook won't cut it as it does not have
>>> equation capabilities (at least it was so last time I checked).

> I'm told the XML version already support MathML up to some degree.

>> I am resigned now to learning DocBook, but it would give me a lot more
>> confidence in learning "Yet another latest documentation standard" if
>> it had more of the basic essential features that LaTeX, man pages, and
>> texinfo have (and if the tool used to transform it was being actively
>> maintained and documented -- Oct 1998 is a bit long in the tooth these
>> days.)

> If you're happy with Texinfo just stay with it.  For certain task I'm
> using Texinfo and I like it.

I have always believed that info got a horrible reputation because it
clung to the complex counter-intuitive key-bindings that it uses for
so long -- people can only be beeped at so many times for trying to
use page-up or page-down before they develop an intense hatred for a
program.  It searches incredibly fast -- you can do a complex regexp
search of a complete 700-800 page document like the elisp manual in
just seconds.