On 14 Jun 2011, at 18:45, Jens Rantil wrote: > Just throwing in my 2 cents in this discussion. > > On Jun 14, 2011, at 6:13 PM, Noah Slater wrote: > > /doc > /doc/docbook > /doc/docbook/root.xml > /doc/docbook/ch1.xml > /doc/docbook/ch2.xml > /doc/docbook/ch3.xml > /doc/Makefile.am > > You get the idea. The Makefile.am would contain a bunch of rules that would > allow us to convert this DocBook into plain text, DocBook, man, info, LaTeX, > PostScript, and PDF as needed. All very straight forward. > > Is really writing documentation XML the best we can come up with? How about > using 'pandoc' (http://johnmacfarlane.net/pandoc/) to write documentation in > restructuredText, markdown or textile instead? They are all way easier to > read and write for newcomers.
They are also not capable of structuring documentation exhaustively. I hate XML as much as the next guy, but MC's doc system is really slick and not as bad once the basic infrastructure is in place (I'll show it soon, promised). Cheers Jan --
