Re: Documentation grammars, was:[Re: [RT] latest wonderings around W3C land and surroundings]

[Mike Pogue <mp...@apache.org>]

Norman Walsh wrote:
> 
> / Mike Pogue <mp...@apache.org> was heard to say:
> | I think we ended up with about 20 in Stylebook, and that includes the
> | ones that were developed specifically for XML and the parser
> | documentation.
> | Where possible (like tables), the tags are identical to HTML.
> 
> Where is the stylebook DTD?

I think it's in the Stylebook section of CVS.  There's no documentation
though,
just the DTD.

 
> | If you can, try to make the simplified subset even smaller!
> 
> I have. http://nwalsh.com/docbook/simple/sdocbook/: what would you delete?

I'll take a look!
 

> | In this case, StyleBook went with the HTML style, rather than the
> | DocBook style
> | (which is <para> as I recall). We killed several birds with one stone:
> | it's
> | shorter, it's easier to learn, and you can cut/paste from HTML (OK,
> | XHTML).
> 
> I disagree that it's easier to learn in principal, but given that
> almost everyone now knows HTML, perhaps it's easier in practice.

Yep.  "in practice" is what I meant.