Matthew Hannigan wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 08:53:28AM -0800, Thomas Lord wrote: > >>[ .. ] >>So I advise: >> >> 1. Make the source form and plain text form >> the same. Writers can make the plain text >> look nice by hand. >>[ .. ] > > > I really like this. In fact I've had it rolling around > in my head for a while as 'markless markup language'. > > If you have strong conventions on the plain text it > could be sensibly parsed. > > Matt
You might look into reStructuredText. http://docutils.sourceforge.net/rst.html It is not a perfect documentation syntax. But it does look decent in text form, and can be parsed into html, latex, or xml. It doesn't have a parser into info or man, though it shouldn't be hard to write one. (If only by going through XML). It was brought up a long time ago, and some people felt that *it* was reinventing the wheel. But it is what I use when I don't want to break out LaTeX for a paper. John =:->
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
