* We negotiate a HTML schema your documentation can be written in, which is based on current documentation; existing HTML documentation will be converted to the schema, with minimised changes. (The structuredness of HTML helps; now you also see why knowing some Lisp is beneficial :)
I'm totally willing to use a HTML schema we can negotiate, to write future documentation in. What I don't want to do is: - Touch existing documentation, unless I have to rewrite the content of a page for some reason. Of course, if the conversion work is done by somebody else, I have no objection to upstreaming the new documents. - Add heavy dependencies to the skarnet.org Makefiles. But honestly, if I'm going to change the way I write doc, I'd rather write scdoc, which is simpler than plain HTML especially if we're adding a lot of semantic tags to that HTML. To me, the best thing would be if someone would add a HTML backend to scdoc. I may do it myself if I need a break from interesting service management stuff and experience an irresistible urge to work on HTML generation instead. The odds are what they are. -- Laurent
