On Sat, 2004-07-31 at 23:51, Telsa Gwynne wrote: > I am really going to regret saying this. But... > My Docbook learning experience is a little while ago now, and I > expect a new one shortly. But the "which part" is easy: > > Emacs. > > I realise this is a holy war, > I am sorry. I do not think this is the answer you wanted to > hear! But for me, the problem was an editor that didn't seem > to fit me, for which every manual was written. Perfectly good answer. I am told that vim has an xml mode too, but I don't use vim, so I can't point you to it. I think the *use emacs* mandate is too strong, but your point about needing Unicode is well taken. Any text editor that supports Unicode, or an understanding of Numerical code points is necessary. > > As for installing, I am the wrong person to comment, because > from my point of view it has become a lot easier. (But it was > hell before.) I just ensure that DocBook and stylesheets are > selected in the install. And hope that they'll pull the rest > in. Hoorah for dependencies. Having done it before, and suffered, I'm now able to do a full docbook install without problems. The docbook community update so frequently that you need to be able to re-install without pain :-) Google on vim xml gets some results. Tobias seems to have documented it; I'm sure there is plenty around, if you want it? -- Regards DaveP. XSLT&Docbook FAQ http://www.dpawson.co.uk/xsl
