Mark: > You can produce plain text from it as well as other useful formats.
Yes but it's the other direction that is of interest, especially for technical documentation. Some of the plain text belongs in the source, for example. > While DocBook is hated by quite a few people, I don't hate it in the slightest. I don't wholeheartedly endorse it because I haven't had time or reason to nitpick its details in depth but as far as I know, it's quite good. It's very nice that so many downstream tools process docbook text or text derived from that. It may very well be the right thing to use when programming an Awiki grammar (or similar) -- defining the *target* language, not the *source* language. > if you wish to have the last word in this branch of the thread, > go for it. My last word is: please don't take me as rejecting docbook. The target v. source language distinction is what I'm trying to point out to you. I think docbook may very well make a fine target language. Thank you for bringing it up, in fact. I should have done so in the first place. -t _______________________________________________ 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/
