Re: Documentation files in html format?

[Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>]

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 16:17:19 +0200 Willy Tarreau wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 10:19:25AM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 10:51:17PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > The problem I have with asciidoc is that it's a nightmare to get it
> > > to work. It's what GIT uses, and after spending a whole day trying
> > > to *build* that thing, I finally resigned and asked Junio if he could
> > > publish the pre-formatted manpages himself, which he agreed to.
> > 
> > I wasn't actually suggesting we use the asciidoc tools--that's a
> > separate question.  We could ignore them, or wait till they solve
> > whatever problems they may have.
> > 
> > I was just suggesting that if we took your suggestion of standardizing
> > on plain text plus some conventions for formatting lists and headers and
> > such, one easy way to do that might just be to adopt the asciidoc format
> > (or some subset thereof).  Is there any part of the asciidoc *syntax*
> > that you object to?
> 
> Not particularly. It's just slightly less readable as plain text but
> OTOH produces nice documents when you have a working toolchain. But
> that's a language which needs to be learned, as every such language.
> Plain text on the contrary, requires no learning. The conventions are
> more like suggestions to newcomers. Everyone is free to proceed as he
> wants, judging by the result while writing the text.

but if we use something richer than plain text, I think that we
shouldn't need to invent yet another markup language.
Just use HTML or asciidoc or MarkDown etc...

---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***