All peace on Brother Tucker.
I have no a priori objections to using markdown in the Reference (in
other words, in the LFC source code).
Please don't put it in the Dguide(s), however. One markup at a time
is enough, IMHO.
jrs
On Sep 19, 2007, at 4:00 PM, P T Withington wrote:
But the input for the docbook comes from comments in our (text)
source files. Unless I am mistaken, we are encouraged to use html
markup in these comments, which to my mind makes them ugly and hard
to read in my source code editor. What I was suggesting is that
the text comments be filtered through markdown when they are first
extracted.
Probably you and Ben are not talking about the ref man (which is
what I am thinking about), which is why it seems like I might be hi!
On 2007-09-19, at 15:53 EDT, Lou Iorio wrote:
We're producing DocBook, which is xml, not html. This would not
work for us
(markdown, that is, not smoking crack).
Benjamin Shine wrote:
Who hooked Tucker up with a crack pipe and the rock?
Tucker, please, for the team, stop smoking crack!
On Sep 19, 2007, at 12:26 PM, P T Withington wrote:
If _I_ ran the zoo, I would propose that we support [markdown]
(http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/) in our source doc
comments. Yes, it's another tool in our toolchain, but I find
it a highly legible (and writable) way to mark up your doc
without cluttering it with html.
On 2007-09-19, at 15:10 EDT, Benjamin Shine wrote:
Approved. Holy *cow* you're thorough.
Please make another work item to change things that say "_not_"
to good docbook markup -- is that just <em>not</em> in docbook,
or is there another way to express emphasis?
