On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 01:55:51PM +0200, Michael J Gruber wrote: > > I wonder if a more sane route is to drop HTML entirely, convert the > > asciidoc to docbook (which we already do for manpages), and then create > > a docbook document that is a collection of all elements, which can then > > Hmm, I think the html output often looks better than the man output > (tables and such), and it is a formatted, reflowable, interlinked format > fit for many puposes.
It does look better, but that is because the docbook->roff step is where things get ugly. In theory, docbook is at least as expressive as HTML, and has lots of nice semantic markup that gives us flexibility in what the final product looks like. There are docbook->epub converters (I think xmlto will do this out of the box), as well as a host of other formats. But convincing docbook to create a collection of "refentry" (their term for manpage) articles is harder than you'd think. I tried a few things when this thread started and couldn't get anything simple to work (xml has managed to make the simple act of "include this document in this other document" insanely complex). But I only spent a few minutes on it. > > be converted to pdf, epub, or whatever. I would not be surprised if > > somebody has solved this problem before (but it is not really my itch, > > so I did not look very far). > > I'd rather ditch docbook and have one toolchain (asciidoc, unless we > want to switch to something else) only... We've been hunting asciidoc as > well as docbook compatibility (between versions) and interoperability > (between them) issues again and again. Yeah, I really hate our doc toolchain. It just seems like everything else is even worse. We can ditch docbook, but then how do we make manpages? -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html