Per Bothner wrote:
> Chuck Robey wrote:
>
>> So, something like zsltproc would serve, if I wrote a good enough
>> xslt script, wouldnt it?
>
>
> Yes [xsltproc, actually, of course].
Well, knowing that much is helpful.
>
>> could I get some help in formulating (in maybe meta-language) what
>> might the macro be?
>
>
> No, because you have given no clue as to what problem you're trying to
> solve with these "macros". (I thought it might be because you think
> DocBook was too verbose and detailed, but I'm not sure if that's your
> concern.)
>
> I mean beyond what is handled by the standard xslt scripts,
> described here:
> http://www.sagehill.net/book-description.html
> available online as:
> http://www.sagehill.net/docbookxsl/
Per, your comments strike me entirely as being very well thought out,
and I agree to a large extent. I'm beginning to be worried that I might
be straying to near to the idea of asking othgers to do my work for me,
so let me read all of what you're pointing me at (I haven't even
finished your previous pointers). My goal was, I thought, to create a
set of macros implemented in something like xsltproc, allowing me to
create a set of vim macros so i could write docbook text (I have several
topics ready for me) in my chosen editor. I doon't want to try learning
emacs again, it's just too huge (although I did learn it once, but it
proved so huge that if I didn't use it constantly, I rather easily lost
my emacs skills).
I guess what I'm saying is, when I formulated a paragraph stating the
info I wanted (the macro explanations) I wasn't certain I was maybe
straying to near to the dividing line, of getting others to do my own
work for me. Couldn't allow that.
