Hallöchen! Skip Montanaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...] > > I'm not convinced we actually need to change markup systems either. My > suggestion that perhaps migrating to reST was motivated by: > > * my dread (real or imagined) that trying to coax different > output from latex2html would be a big PITA It is possible to tweak tex4ht for this purpose. It would generate some sort of XML which you could use as the starting point, for example. tex4ht+XSLT is very slow, but reST isn't a sprinter either. Unfortunately, tex4ht is not easy to setup. By the way, is there an agreement on a clearly defined subset of the LaTeX language or Python documentation? If you allow everything that TeX/LaTeX can process (even if you recommend certain ways more than others) you end up with LaTeX files that only TeX/LaTeX can process. > * a perhaps invalid assumption that reST-as-input would > generate more documentation contributions based upon the > occasional comment I've seen over the years that > (paraphrasing), "I can't contribute - I don't know how to > use LaTeX." I think that this will happen for reST, too. Besides, many people know LaTeX already, but nobody will know reST. However, I don't think that this is a fatal point: Complex structure (and computer documentation is amongst the most complex documents at all) always requires complex markup, in one way or the other. (Too much implicit magic must be learned, too.) > I'm personally comfortable with LaTeX. Fred has yet to complain > about my markup errors, so if we can find other ways to address > the above problems/perceptions, I'd actually be happy to keep > LaTeX. I know LaTeX very well, and I can say that I like it very much. However, it's difficult to guarantee translations to other formats. Concerning "there's more than one way to do it", LaTeX is much worse than Perl. Even if you keep the core documentation consistent, it would be better to have a rock-solid standard doc system in Python. Let alone the problems when trying to add a feature to your documentation system. I have thorough experiences with XML (http://tbook.sf.net), and I think that it's the best way to archive and to process documentation. Since you can't (well, don't want to) input it directly, something like reST with an XML backend -- among others -- is the way to go, in my opinion. Even if for really complex projects the reST source becomes somewhat cluttered, too, it can be an efficient replacement for LaTeX docs. It contains so many clever tricks to keep the "plain text" appearance that I'm optimistic that the rest can be added rather nicely, too. Tschö, Torsten. -- Torsten Bronger, aquisgrana, europa vetus _______________________________________________ Doc-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/doc-sig
